USDA Watchhttps://www.organicconsumers.org/campaigns/33576/feed
enTAKE ACTION BY MIDNIGHT JANUARY 17: Stop Trump’s Attack on Organic’s Animal Welfare Rules! https://www.organicconsumers.org/node/1050021
<div class="field field-name-field-belong-to-campaign field-type-entityreference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Belong to campaign:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/campaigns/usda-watch">USDA Watch</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/campaigns/safeguard-organic-standards">Safeguard Organic Standards</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Category:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/organlink">All About Organics</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-area-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Area:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/usa">USA</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/250x250/public/chicksincage1000x523.png?itok=ZuAUgiei" width="250" height="131" alt="chicks in cages" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Do you buy organic eggs? <br /><br />If so, we hope you buy them from a local farmer or from a grocery store that stocks “pasture-raised” organic. <br /><br />If not, the hens that laid your organic eggs were probably confined at the rate of three chickens-per-square-ft. of floor space, in a huge poultry barn housing hundreds of thousands of birds. Those birds likely never set foot outdoors, much less saw the light of day.<br /><br /><a href="https://action.organicconsumers.org/o/50865/p/dia/action4/common/public/?action_KEY=21370" target="_blank"><strong>TAKE ACTION BY MIDNIGHT JANUARY 17: Stop Trump’s Attack on Organic’s Animal Welfare Rules! </strong></a></span><a href="/node/1050021" class="more-link">Read more</a></p></div></div></div>Tue, 09 Jan 2018 21:49:00 +0000Melinda1050021 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgThat Organic Chicken On Your Plate: Did It Really Get To Walk Around Outside?https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/organic-chicken-your-plate-did-it-really-get-walk-around-outside
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/organlink">All About Organics</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Venessa Wong</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">BuzzFeed News </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">November 3, 2017</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">https://www.buzzfeed.com/venessawong/theres-a-wild-fight-being-waged-over-organic-chickens?utm_term=.usGQ6BZrrx#.kmmzKb5kkE</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-45091" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/chickens-grass-510x267">chickens on grass 510x267</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/chickensongrass510x267.jpg?itok=_hHmEbna" alt="chickens on grass" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>What does it mean to be an organic chicken?</p>
<p>The US Department of Agriculture and organic food advocates are locked in a fierce battle over just what "organic" means, specifically with regard to poultry welfare. How much living space should organic chickens be entitled to? How much access should they have to the outdoors?</p>
<p>While rules established in the twilight of the Obama administration would make life nicer for chickens raised organically — giving them more elbow room and time in the sun — the Trump administration has delayed implementation of these rules, perhaps indefinitely. And so the Organic Trade Association — the industry's lobbying group — has taken the USDA to court, seeking to force the agency to put the rules in place by Nov. 14.</p>
<p>A lot is at stake — and not just for the millions of birds involved. Chicken and egg producers say the new requirements would be far too expensive to implement, forcing some of them out of the organic business and reducing the overall supply available to consumers.</p>
<p>But animal rights groups and organic food advocates — who celebrated the arrival of the new rules and bemoaned that they didn't go far enough — say that the "organic" label implies a certain standard of living for animals. And if consumers think that standard isn't high enough, they could ultimately decide that buying organic just isn't worth it.</p>
<p>"That USDA organic seal needs to mean something to the consumer, and it needs to be significantly different from the alternatives, because people are paying more for organic products," Laura Batcha, CEO of the Organic Trade Association.</p>
<p>Without stricter rules, she and her members fear, "organic" eventually won't mean much at all to consumers. "We're looking forward to a judge weighing in," she said.</p>
<p>On the other side of the dispute is the National Chicken Council, a trade group for chicken farmers that is deeply concerned about the burden the rules would place on its members.</p>
<p>"Fundamentally, NCC is concerned that the proposed rule imposes unreasonable costs and requirements of doubtful benefit on organic farmers, presents grave risks to animal health in the face of an avian disease outbreak, and undermines ongoing international efforts to develop poultry welfare standards," the National Chicken Council wrote in a <a href="http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NCC-Comments-on-NOP-Proposed-Rule_07132016.pdf">letter</a> last year to the National Organic Program.</p>
<p>Another trade group, United Egg Producers, urged the USDA to withdraw the rules. "Farmers have made major capital investments in buildings, land and other assets, relying on USDA's previous" definition of organic, it said in a letter to the agency in June.</p>
<p>When it comes to organic meat, <a href="https://www.agmrc.org/commodities-products/livestock/poultry/organic-poultry-profile-625/">chicken is king</a>. In 2016, <a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2017/09_20_2017.php">sales</a> of organic chicken (the most widely sold organic meat) shot up by 78% to $750 million and organic egg sales jumped by 11% $816 million. The poultry company Perdue acquired organic chicken producer Coleman Natural Foods in 2011.</p>
<p>Tyson Foods said earlier this year that the company would introduce organic chicken in July. "Organic is a very small space today, but it is growing," said Tyson's CEO, Tom Hayes, said at the time.</p></div></div></div>Sat, 04 Nov 2017 07:42:00 +0000judy1047216 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgTell Congress: Subsidize Healthy Foods, Not Junk Foods!https://www.organicconsumers.org/node/1045461
<div class="field field-name-field-belong-to-campaign field-type-entityreference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Belong to campaign:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/campaigns/usda-watch">USDA Watch</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/campaigns/appetite-change">Appetite for a Change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/campaigns/resist-and-regenerate">#Resist and #Regenerate</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Category:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/health-issues">Health Issues</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/politics-globalization">Politics &amp; Globalization</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-area-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Area:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/usa">USA</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/250x250/public/healthy_food_1000x523.png?itok=qFxMARIJ" width="250" height="131" alt="vegetables, berries and nuts on a table" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Have you ever wondered why genetically modified, pesticide-drenched, over-fertilized, hyper-processed foods are cheaper than organic foods grown without these expensive inputs? <br /><br />The answer is simple. These crops, destined to become refined carbohydrates, sweeteners, fats and feed for animals imprisoned in factory farms, get about $20 billion in Farm Bill subsidies every year. <br /><br />Organic produce and pasture-raised animal products get no direct support.<br /><br />According to a study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Farm Bill crop subsidies contribute significantly to obesity and diet-related disease.</p>
<p><a href="https://action.organicconsumers.org/o/50865/p/dia/action4/common/public/?action_KEY=21159" target="_blank"><strong>TAKE ACTION: Tell Congress to fix the U.S. obesity and diet-related disease problem by shifting federal farm subsidies from junk food crops to organic produce.</strong></a><a href="/node/1045461" class="more-link">Read more</a></p></div></div></div>Thu, 05 Oct 2017 14:35:00 +0000Melinda-Admin1045461 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgUSDA Scolds National Organic Program for Lax Enforcementhttps://www.organicconsumers.org/news/usda-scolds-national-organic-program-lax-enforcement
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/organlink">All About Organics</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Hank Campbell</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Science 2.0</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">September 18, 2017</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">http://www.science20.com/hank_campbell/usda_scolds_national_organic_program_for_lax_enforcement-226351</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-43836" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/grapes-hands-holding-produce-food-cc-1000x523jpg">grapes hands holding produce food cc 1000x523.jpg</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/grapes_hands_holding_produce_food_1000x523.jpg?itok=HgIdb-ib" alt="hands holding a harvest of fresh red grapes" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General recently did an audit of the National Organic Program, which is part of its Agricultural Marketing Services group.<br /><br /><em>Marketing</em>? Yes, that is the only real thing that the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 set out to accomplish. The AMS group was given $120,000 at the request of organic food lobbyists and permission to create a set of standards they could use in marketing, to create an official seal of what "organic" would mean. The time-limited advisory board they created was re-authorized by USDA in 2014 and at that time, a <a href="http://www.science20.com/science_20/organic_lobbyists_petition_to_prevent_usda_from_having_organic_food_oversight-138814" target="_blank">group of organic food marketing groups petitioned to have themselves removed from USDA oversight</a>. <br /><br />If the recent audit is any indication, they are more interested in helping 80 certifying agents stay in business than protecting organic food purchasers. Not only are they undeserving of more independence, this new look reveals USDA needs to assert more oversight.<br /><br /><strong>Organic equivalent - when it's synthetic but we like it</strong><br /><br />The audit found that the "process for determining equivalency of organic standards lacked transparency." In plain language that means it is arbitrary. Want to make sure organic bread businesses can keep up with conventional ones? Exempt baking soda as an organic leavening agent even though biological agents (ummm, like yeast) obviously exist. Unless you want to bake bread faster. <br /><br />Want to use pheromones for insect control even though that is clearly a synthetic pesticide method? Exempt it.<br /><br />And there are <a href="http://www.science20.com/news_articles/organic_food_what_it_means_and_list_artificial_ingredients_allowed-82014" target="_blank">dozens of other examples</a>.<br /><br /><strong>AMS is relieved a third party took notice</strong><br /><br />For its part, AMS gladly accepted the findings. They agreed with all nine of them. They know that NOP's National Organic Standards Board is a gaggle of rogue fifth columnists terrifying people about conventional food, which AMS has responsibility for also. Corporate marketing groups like Organic Consumers Association, which directly created US Right To Know, an industry front group, in order to promote their clients, many of whom currently sit or have been on the NOSB exempting themselves from oversight. <br /><br />They know that organic food companies are desperate to grow, and if they can't penalize competitors, they have to lower their own prices. <br /><br />That means imports, many of them from suspect places.</p></div></div></div>Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:17:40 +0000Pam1044781 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgOrganics: Ferreting Out the Fraudulent Few, While Demanding Higher Standards, Better Enforcementhttps://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/organics-ferreting-out-fraudulent-few-while-demanding-higher-standards-better-enforcement
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/organlink">All About Organics</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/politics-globalization">Politics &amp; Globalization</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Organic Consumers Association</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">July 18, 2017</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-42041" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/brokenglassusdasealquestion1000x523002jpg">broken_glass_usda_seal_question_1000x523_002.jpg</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/broken_glass_usda_seal_question_1000x523_002.jpg?itok=Cr4Awzvr" alt="USDA organic seal under broken glass with red question marks" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>A <span style="font-size: 14px;">recent series of articles by a Washington Post reporter could have some consumers questioning the value of the USDA organic seal. But are a few bad eggs representative of an entire industry? </span></p>
<p>Consumers are all for cracking down on the fraudulent few who, with the help of Big Food, big retail chains and questionable certifiers give organics a bad name. But they also want stronger standards, and better enforcement—not a plan to weaken standards to accommodate "Factory Farm Organic."</p>
<p>The Washington Post exposed a couple of companies, certified organic, that don’t strictly adhere to organic standards. <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/news/uncertainty-and-dysfunction-have-overtaken-usda-program-organic-foods-key-lawmaker-says" target="_blank">The Post</a> and <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/news/will-coming-reforms-usda-spell-end-organic" target="_blank">others</a> also recently reported on what one lawmaker, who serves on a key U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) committee, called “uncertainty and dysfunction” at the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).</p>
<p>All these reports are troubling on multiple levels, especially to consumers who rely on the USDA organic seal to help them avoid pesticides, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), synthetic ingredients and foods produced using methods that degenerate soil health and pollute the environment. (It's important to note that none of these reports address the biggest marketing and labeling fraud of them all—products sold as "natural," "all natural" and "100% natural," a <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/nfm-2017-market-overview_1.pdf" target="_blank">$90-billion industry</a> that eclipses the $50-billion certified organic industry).</p>
<p>What can consumers do to ensure that the certified organic products they buy meet existing organic standards? And how do we, as consumers, fight back against efforts to weaken those standards?</p>
<p>The short answers: One, there are about 25,000 honest organic local and regional producers, vs. a handful of big brands, mostly national, who flout the rules. <span style="font-size: 14px;">(Most "Factory Farm Organic" companies sell their products, and provide private-label products, for big retail chains like Costco, Walmart, Safeway, Albertson’s, Kroger’s and others). </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px;">Two,</span> if consumers want stronger, not weaker organic standards, we need to <a href="http://action.organicconsumers.org/o/50865/p/dia/action4/common/public/?action_KEY=20948" target="_blank">demand them</a>.</p>
<p><strong style="font-size: 14px;">Bad actors hurt consumers <em>and</em> legitimate organic producers</strong></p>
<p>Over the past several months, the Washington Post has reported the following:</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">• Eggland’s Best eggs, marketed as certified organic by Herbruck’s Poultry Ranch, come from hens that <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/why-hell-am-i-paying-more-major-egg-operation-houses-usda-organic-hens-three-square-foot" target="_blank">never go outside</a>. (Even before the Post’s expose, OCA had called for a <a href="https://action.organicconsumers.org/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=16199" target="_blank">boycott</a> of Eggland’s Best eggs).</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">• Aurora Organic Dairy, which supplies organic milk to Walmart, Costco and other major retailers, <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/why-your-organic-milk-may-not-be-organic&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiIoIbs85LVAhUJ7oMKHdBAD0oQFggOMAQ&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;usg=AFQjCNEKbr3ZRBnLSEXn889VpO8q9ctcdw" target="_blank">doesn’t adhere</a> to organic standards that require cows to be outdoors daily during the growing season. (OCA, Cornucopia Institute and other groups have been demanding better policing of Aurora Dairy for more than a decade).</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">• Some “organic” soy and corn imports <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/labels-said-organic-these-massive-imports-corn-and-soybeans-werent" target="_blank">aren’t actually organic</a>.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">• Some “organic” foods <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/how-millions-cartons-organic-milk-contain-oil-brewed-industrial-vats-algae" target="_blank">contain</a> a synthetic oil brewed in industrial vats of algae.</p>
<p>Stories like these erode consumer confidence in the organic seal. When consumers give up on organic, legitimate organic farmers and producers lose sales, too.</p>
<p>But that’s only the part of the problem. By cutting corners on organic standards, big producers can sell at lower prices—that puts the smaller, local and regional organic producers who don’t have big contracts with big retailers, and who must charge more because they actually follow organic standards to letter, at a competitive disadvantage in the market.</p>
<p>In some cases, it puts them out of business.</p>
<p>The Washington Post’s Peter Whoriskey recently interviewed Amish organic dairy farmers who are struggling to compete against companies like Aurora, which the farmers say, don’t deserve the organic label. The Post <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/real-organic-milk-being-dumped-cheap-industrial-organic-dominates-big-box-stores" target="_blank">reported</a>:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">Over the past year, the price of wholesale organic milk sold by Kalona [Iowa] farms has dropped by more than 33 percent. Some of their milk — as much as 15 percent of it — is being sold at the same price as regular milk or just dumped onto the ground, according to a local processor. Organic milk from other small farmers across the United States is also being dumped at similar rates, according to industry figures.</p>
<p>After the Washington Post ran its April 30 <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/why-your-organic-milk-may-not-be-organic" target="_blank">exposé</a> on Aurora, Liz Bawden, an organic dairy farmer in New York and president of the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance and member of the Northeast Organic Farmers Association (NOFA-NY) board <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/nofa-ny-board-member-responds-article-why-your-organic-milk-may-not-be-organic" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">A consumer reads “Why Your Organic Milk May Not Be Organic” on the front page of their newspaper. That might be the end consumer for the milk from my farm. And that person is sitting in front of a bowl of cornflakes wondering if she has been scammed all this time. Just a little doubt that the organic seal may not mean what she thought it meant. That is real damage to my farm and family income.</p>
<p><strong>Boycott the organic imposters</strong></p>
<p>Consumers choose organic for <a href="http://greenerchoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CR_2015_Natural_Food_Labels_Survey.pdf" target="_blank">many reasons</a>. At the top of the list health. Consumers believe food that doesn’t contain pesticides, genetically modified organisms and synthetic/artificial ingredients, all of which are largely prohibited under USDA organic standards, is better for their own health.</p>
<p>That said, many consumers have an expanded list of reasons for buying organic, which include concern about the environment, animal welfare, fair trade and the desire to support local farms, and farmers committed to building healthy, rich soil capable of drawing down and sequestering carbon.</p>
<p>It’s naturally discouraging to read articles that sow doubt about whether a certified organic product meets your expectations. Fortunately, there are things you can do to minimize the chances of ending up with an organic carton of milk or eggs produced by an “organic imposter.”</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><strong>• Boycott large, national brands. </strong>As demand grows for organics, Big Food is scooping up smaller organic brands. In most cases, nothing good comes this for consumers, as large corporations apply the “economies of scale” theory and ultimately skimp wherever they can on quality and production. As a general rule of thumb, the big players—like Aurora Dairy and Herbruck’s Farm (Eggland’s Best)—don’t play by the rules.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><strong>• Steer clear of private-label organics</strong>. It’s easy to identify the bad actors when they market products under their own names. But when it comes to private-label organics (think Safeway’s O’ Organic, Costco’s Kirkland, Walmart’s Great Value), it’s not readily apparent who is producing those products for big retail chains. We know that Aurora, which doesn’t market any milk under its own name, supplies organic milk to Walmart, Costco and Safeway. But in general, lack of transparency in the organic private label arena is a “huge problem,” one industry consultant told us. Most big retailers are complicit in organic fraud. The best strategy is avoidance.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><strong>• Check the codes on your milk carton. </strong>In her <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/nofa-ny-board-member-responds-article-why-your-organic-milk-may-not-be-organic" target="_blank">response</a> to the Post’s story on Aurora, Bawden told consumers how to avoid milk produced by Aurora Dairy by checking the code on the carton. If you find the number 08-29, you’ll know that the milk comes from a plant that processes milk from Aurora Dairy. You can look up all the milk carton codes on the “wheredoesmymilkcomefrom” <a href="http://whereismymilkfrom.com/#" target="_blank">website</a>.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><strong>• Do your homework. </strong>It would be great if you could rely entirely on the USDA organic seal. But given what we know about the weak links in that otherwise valuable chain, it pays to research. Googling brand names is one way to find information—but don’t rely on company websites, which are often loaded with false claims. Visit the Cornucopia Institute’s website, where you’ll find organic <a href="https://www.cornucopia.org/dairy_brand_ratings/" target="_blank">dairy</a>, <a href="https://www.cornucopia.org/organic-egg-scorecard/" target="_blank">eggs</a> and other products “scored” according to various criteria.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><strong>• Pay attention to who certified your milk or eggs as organic. </strong>In addition to the USDA organic seal, certified organic products must list, on package, the name of the independent body that certified the product to organic standards. There’s an argument to be made that certifiers should be held accountable for certifying products that don’t adhere to organic standards. Until that happens, avoid certifiers like Quality Assurance International (QAI) and the Colorado Department of Agriculture, which certify Aurora Dairy. Some of the more reliable certifiers include Oregon Tilth, PCO (Pennsylvania Certified Organic) and California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF). For a complete list of organic certifiers, <a href="https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/Certifiers/CertifiersLocationsSearchPage.aspx" target="_blank">consult this list</a>.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><strong>• Buy local. </strong>There’s a lot to be said for getting to know, and for supporting, your local organic farmers. They are more likely to follow organic standards, partly out of dedication, and partly to protect their own reputation within their communities. Here’s <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/3-most-important-questions-you-must-ask-identify-authentic-produce-and-ethical-farmers-market" target="_blank">some advice</a> for identifying local authentic and ethical farmers.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><strong>• Report suspected fraud. </strong>If you think a brand is violating organic standards, or falsely advertising/labeling a product “natural,” “all natural” or “100% natural,” email us at <a href="mailto:fraud@organicconsumers.org">fraud@organicconsumers.org.</a></p>
<p><strong>Consumers will have to help protect organic standards</strong></p>
<p>Organic Consumers Association was founded, in 1998, when the USDA was writing the very first set of organic standards, as required under the <a href="http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/scic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?query=&amp;prodId=SCIC&amp;contentModules=&amp;displayGroupName=Reference&amp;limiter=&amp;disableHighlighting=false&amp;displayGroups=&amp;sortBy=&amp;search_within_results=&amp;p=SCIC&amp;action=2&amp;catId=&amp;activityType=&amp;documentId=GALE%7CCX1918600187&amp;source=Bookmark&amp;u=pl2763&amp;jsid=b9e9b4b646566d800a81d2f6c660b532" target="_blank">Organic Foods Production Act</a> (OFPA). The policy writers wanted irradiation to be allowed in organic. And sewage sludge. And GMOs. We fought successfully to keep them out.</p>
<p>Since then we’ve had to go to battle with every administration since over the integrity and enforcement of organic standards. The Clinton Administration <a href="http://archive.is/fpwS" target="_blank">tried to get GMOs into organic</a>. The Bush Administration <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070203365_pf.html" target="_blank">made it easier</a> to get synthetics into organic. The Obama Administration <a href="http://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1518&amp;context=blr" target="_blank">made it harder</a> to get synthetics out of organic.</p>
<p>It didn’t help any that in 2005, Congress <a href="http://www.nofa.org/tnf/2006spring/Holding%20On%20To%20Organic!.pdf" target="_blank">passed a law</a> that made it a lot easier for the largest food companies to create “organic” versions of their factory farm and processed foods.</p>
<p>Now those companies are stepping up their game, <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/will-coming-reforms-usda-spell-end-organic" target="_blank">threatening</a> to make changes to the OFPA and NOSB that could weaken organic standards beyond recognition. Why now? Two reasons.</p>
<p>One, as <a href="https://www.ota.com/resources/market-analysis" target="_blank">consumer demand</a> for organic products grows, Big Food is buying up organic brands. This gives them a seat at the organic policymaking table, where, naturally, they are hard at work to lower standards in order to raise profit margins.</p>
<p>And two, they smell opportunity. The Trump Administration has <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/deep-industry-ties-trumps-deregulation-teams" target="_blank">made its position</a> on regulations clear: more industry involvement, more concern for corporate profits, and less concern for consumer rights, public health, the environment.</p>
<p>Congress needs to <a href="https://action.organicconsumers.org/o/50865/p/dia/action4/common/public/?action_KEY=20948" target="_blank">hear from consumers</a>—often, and in large numbers—that we want stronger, not weaker organic standards. Standards that support small, authentic producers.</p>
<p><strong>Putting it in perspective</strong></p>
<p>Organic isn’t perfect. The standards aren’t perfect. The enforcement process isn’t perfect. And some of the players are downright crooked.</p>
<p>That said, consumers can by and large trust all organic produce. And if they’re willing to do a little homework, they can identify the producers in the organic processed food arena who abide by the rules.</p>
<p>To put things in perspective, compare the $50-billion organic industry with the <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/nfm-2017-market-overview_1.pdf" target="_blank">$90-billion</a> “natural” industry. No standards. No ethics. And the clear intention to increase sales by falsely claiming that products that contain all manner of “unnatural” substances, including <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/press/non-profits-sue-general-mills-false-and-misleading-use-%E2%80%98natural%E2%80%99-0" target="_blank">pesticides</a>, synthetic ingredients—even <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/drug-residue-found-sanderson-farms-100-natural-chicken-product-complaint-claims" target="_blank">drugs</a> —are the “healthy choice.”</p>
<p>So let’s keep policing the organic industry, exposing the fraud, working for stronger standards and better enforcement of those standards.</p>
<p>But let’s be just as vigilant about exposing the “<a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/campaigns/myth-natural" target="_blank">Myth of Natural</a>,” and cracking down on what is arguably the biggest food marketing scam in the history of advertising.</p>
<p><em>Katherine Paul is associate director of the Organic Consumers Association.</em></p>
<p><em>Ronnie Cummins is international director of the Organic Consumers Association.</em></p></div></div></div>Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:55:00 +0000Melinda1042011 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgWill Coming 'Reforms' at the USDA Spell the End of Organic?https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/will-coming-reforms-usda-spell-end-organic
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/organlink">All About Organics</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Alan Lewis</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">LinkedIn</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">July 2, 2017</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/do-reforms-usda-spell-end-organic-alan-lewis</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-36766" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/angry-chicken-bird-animal-farm-cc-1000x523jpg">angry chicken bird animal farm cc 1000x523.jpg</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/angry_chicken_bird_animal_farm_1000x523.jpg?itok=rp0jRtiU" alt="Chicken on a farm" title="Chicken on a farm" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><em>Back Room “Reform” of the National Organic Standards Board May Be a Direct Threat to Organic Integrity.</em><br /><br />I spent a week on Capitol Hill recently, during which I spoke with over two dozen congressional staffers and lawmakers about the upcoming 2018 Farm Bill. With about 400 days to go before the 2012 Farm Bill funding ends, everyone in the food/agriculture/nutrition arena is focused on negotiating to protect their favorite programs. Senator Roberts (R-KS), the dean of farming in the Senate, has stated there will be no added funding. If you want something new, then first find something someone else can do without. The Trump Administration has, of course, threatened a budget with hefty reductions in spending for both rural safety net (crop insurance, price supports) and urban safety net (SNAP, school nutrition) spending.</p>
<p>In May, the USDA began an agency reform initiative to cut out unnecessary spending and streamline regulation. These appear to be a code phrases for dismantling many longstanding programs that big agriculture can do without, but that smallholders are too disorganized and powerless to fight for. As previous Ag Secretary Vilsack reminded everyone, he just finished cutting nearly $2 billion from the USDA budget during the Obama years. </p>
<p>One of my Hill meetings was with a senior staffer for Senator Roberts who works on the Senate Agriculture Committee staff. The discussion was fairly normal until, towards the end, with my hand on the door knob, he stated that his people would be “reforming the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).” Taken aback, I asked him what that meant. Rather than walking back the statement, he doubled down: he was going to put a stop to Cornucopia Institute’s habit of using the NOSB for its fundraising by riling up consumers about the practices of large scale industrial chicken, egg and dairy farms. <br /><br />Note that within this staffer’s milieu, reforming the NOSB is seen as a <em>de facto</em> policy initiative. It is not an idea, or a bee-in-the-bonnet, or a wish. They simply intend to undertake these reforms during the next 400 days. This assumption would explain why the National Organic Program's (NOP's) Animal Welfare Final Rule on livestock production practices was suspended in January just before it was to take effect. They do not agree with it and will not allow it to be implemented in its current iteration. To this end, they have Senator Stabenow (D-MI and ranking member of Senate Ag) on their side. She is an outspoken protector of her certified organic industrial egg producers in Michigan, who will likely be inconvenienced by the new animal welfare standards. Most other states have industrial organic operators as well. They seem to have won the day. </p></div></div></div>Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:56:00 +0000Pam1041691 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgWhy You Can't Have Organic Food without Soilhttps://www.organicconsumers.org/news/why-you-cant-have-organic-food-without-soil
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/organlink">All About Organics</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Eliot Coleman</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Civil Eats</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">April 13, 2017</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">http://civileats.com/2015/04/13/why-you-cant-have-organic-food-without-soil/</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-31976" class="file file-image file-image-png" class="file file-image file-image-png">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/vertical-farm">vertical farm</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/vertical_farm.png?itok=C--BcZDG" alt="plants growing in vertical hydroponic system" title="plants growing in vertical hydroponic system" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Long time supporters of organic food need to realize that the ground is shifting beneath their feet. Rapidly. Ever since the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was given control of the word in 2000, the integrity of the “USDA Certified Organic” label has been on a downhill slope.</p>
<p>We now have <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/021763_organic_milk_Dean_Foods.html">4,000-cow dairies</a> with very limited access to pasture and 1,000-acre vegetable fields fed fertilizers of <a href="http://grist.org/organic-food/2011-05-18-california-how-a-fake-organic-fertilizer-bamboozled-farmers/">suspicious provenance</a> producing food that is called organic. But, even more dismaying, we also now have <em>certified organic hydroponics</em>.</p>
<p>What’s wrong with that?</p>
<p>For starters, there isn’t any soil in hydroponic production. One of the appeals of organic food is that it is grown in a biologically active, fertile soil. That type of soil adds immeasurably to the plants’ nutritional value.</p>
<p>In an ideal farming system, soils are nourished, as in the natural world, with farm-derived organic matter and mineral particles from ground rock. Green manures and cover crops are included within crop rotations to maintain biological diversity. It’s a “plant positive” rather than “pest negative” philosophy, focused on growing vigorous, healthy plants and animals imbued with all their natural powers of resistance.</p>
<p>The original USDA definition of “organic” stressed “soil biological activity” as one of the processes enhanced by organic practices. But to many farmers’ dismay, the agency rewrote that definition in 2002 to remove any reference to the word soil.</p>
<p>Then, in 2010, the <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nosb">National Organic Standards Board</a> (NOSB), the group of farmers, scientists, and public interest advocates in charge of recommending changes to the organic standards, strenuously objected to the inclusion of soil-free farming in the standards. In <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5084677">their recommendation</a>, they wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>The abundance of organisms in healthy, organically maintained soils form a biological network, an amazing and diverse ecology that is ‘the secret,’ the foundation of the success of organic farming accomplished without the need for synthetic insecticides, nematicides, fumigants, etc.</p></blockquote>
<p>Despite this objection, Miles McEvoy, the director of the <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop">National Organic Program</a> (NOP), has unilaterally allowed organic hydroponics. And many of the organic certifying agencies have jumped right on the bandwagon and started certifying hydroponic operations.</p>
<p>Now, investors are pouring money into hydroponic “vertical farms” where production is hermetically sealed in huge warehouses filled with LED lights and nutrient pumps.</p>
<p>Some of the regional certifying agencies have refused to certify hydroponic operations. That’s a step in the right direction, but what will they do when the produce from “vegetable factories” begins putting their local soil-based growers out of business?</p></div></div></div>Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:19:00 +0000elijah1037166 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgOne of the Biggest Fights in Food Is About to Become a Civil Warhttps://www.organicconsumers.org/news/one-biggest-fights-food-about-become-civil-war
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/organlink">All About Organics</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Joe Fassler</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">The New Food Economy</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">March 9, 2017</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">http://newfoodeconomy.com/organic-checkoff-civil-war/</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-38731" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/farmers-market-berries-fruit-produce-cc-1000x523jpg">farmers market berries fruit produce cc 1000x523.jpg</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/farmers_market_berries_fruit_produce_1000x523.jpg?itok=nZ_yZ09F" alt="Berries and citrus being sold at a farmers market" title="Berries and citrus being sold at a farmers market" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><strong>How the bitter debate over a producer-funded organic "checkoff" program reveals a movement's growing pains—and the fault lines of American agriculture</strong></p>
<p>The history of the organic movement has been marked by vigorous debate about the meaning of the word, which priorities matter most, and who gets to decide. From early arguments about closed-loop systems and off-farm inputs to more recent dust-ups over lawn waste and hydroponics, the term has always been a flashpoint for larger disputes about ethics, economics, and environmental stewardship. So it means a lot to say that the industry is facing the starkest, most bitterly divisive choice it has confronted since the acrimonious process, back in 2000, that led to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s official certification standard.</p>
<p>The question? Whether there should be an organic “checkoff” —that is, a federally mandated research and promotion program that would serve, and be funded by, the entire industry. On April 19, USDA is expected to release the final ruling that will enshrine the organic checkoff’s structure and let stakeholders vote on whether to move forward. The date has already been pushed back once, thanks to the Trump Administration’s ongoing freeze on new federal regulations, so it’s not clear exactly how and when the vote will take place. But one thing <em>is </em>for sure: the prospect of an organic checkoff looks likely to inflame the battles that have long divided the organic movement, and turn them into a full-blown civil war.</p>
<p>For those who aren’t quite sure how checkoffs work, here’s a quick primer. In theory, these programs are a way for producers to band together, using their collective power to spur demand and increase sales. A single soybean farmer, say, can’t afford to advertise nationally, or sponsor research that helps to increase yields. But America’s soybean farmers pay a little each year into a mandatory checkoff program overseen by USDA and the United Soybean Board, and that allows the industry to pay for profit-boosting crop research and marketing spots on prime-time TV. Everyone sacrifices a little, the thinking goes, and everyone benefits. We pay taxes according to the same logic, and many farmers refer to checkoffs as what they essentially are—an industry-specific tax.</p></div></div></div>Thu, 06 Apr 2017 11:55:00 +0000Pam1036751 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgUSDA Drops Plan to Test for Monsanto Weed Killer in Foodhttps://www.organicconsumers.org/news/usda-drops-plan-test-monsanto-weed-killer-food
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/genetic-engineering">Genetic Engineering</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Carey Gillam</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">EcoWatch</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">March 23, 2017</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">http://www.ecowatch.com/usda-glyphosate-testing-2326808630.html</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-36901" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/monsanto-headquarters-netherlands-cc-1000x523jpg">monsanto headquarters netherlands cc 1000x523.jpg</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/monsanto_headquarters_netherlands_1000x523.jpg?itok=drV0PogD" alt="Monsanto&#039;s headquarters in the Netherlands" title="Monsanto&#039;s headquarters in the Netherlands" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has quietly dropped a plan to start testing food for residues of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a>, the world's most widely used weed killer and key ingredient in <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto">Monsanto's</a> branded <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/roundup">Roundup herbicides</a>.</p>
<p>The agency spent the last year coordinating with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in preparation to start testing samples of corn syrup for glyphosate residues on April 1, according to internal agency documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. Documents show that at least since January 2016 into January of this year, the glyphosate testing plan was moving forward. But when asked about the plan this week, a USDA spokesman said no glyphosate residue testing would be done at all by USDA this year.</p>
<p>The USDA's plan called for the collection and testing of 315 samples of corn syrup from around the U.S. from April through August, <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/USDAglytests.png" target="_blank">according to the documents</a>. Researchers were also supposed to test for the AMPA metabolite, the documents state. AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) is created as glyphosate breaks down. Measuring residues that include those from AMPA is important because AMPA is not a benign byproduct but carries its own set of safety concerns, scientists believe.</p></div></div></div>Sat, 25 Mar 2017 18:32:00 +0000elijah1036346 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgACT BY MIDNIGHT MARCH 9: Tell the USDA What You want Food & Farming to Look Like in 50 Yearshttps://www.organicconsumers.org/node/1035576
<div class="field field-name-field-belong-to-campaign field-type-entityreference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Belong to campaign:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/campaigns/usda-watch">USDA Watch</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/campaigns/safeguard-organic-standards">Safeguard Organic Standards</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Category:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/politics-globalization">Politics &amp; Globalization</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-area-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Area:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/usa">USA</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/250x250/public/future_farm_with_stone_fence_1000x523_1_0.png?itok=60MWoEYe" width="250" height="131" alt="farm with stone fence " title="farm with stone fence " /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) wants to know what your vision is for the U.S. food and farming system over the next 50 years.</p><p>On March 2, the Organic Consumers Association presented testimony at the USDA’s “listening session” on the “Visioning of U.S. Agriculture Systems for Sustainable Production.” Now it’s your turn—the USDA has asked for public comments on what a “sustainable” food and farming system should look like.<a href="/node/1035576" class="more-link">Read more</a></p></div></div></div>Mon, 06 Mar 2017 11:01:00 +0000judy1035576 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgPhilpott Is Right: Trump’s ‘Dark Forces’ Are Coming for Your Organic Foodhttps://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/philpott-right-trump%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98dark-forces%E2%80%99-are-coming-your-organic-food
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/organlink">All About Organics</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/politics-globalization">Politics &amp; Globalization</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Ronnie Cummins</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Organic Consumers Association</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">February 14, 2017</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-37416" class="file file-image file-image-png" class="file file-image file-image-png">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/smoke-man-1000x523">Smoke Man 1000x523</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/smoke_man_1000x523.png?itok=L-nTAvjP" alt="Face of a man with smoke all around" title="Face of a man with smoke all around" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Over the past three decades, organic food, farming, and products in the U.S. have grown into a $50-billion-a-year powerhouse, representing more than 5 percent of all retail grocery sales. This growth has been achieved with little or no help from the White House, Congress or the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and that’s been true no matter which party, Democrat or Republican, has been in power.</p>
<p>At current rates of growth the majority of food sales in the U.S. will be organic or 100% grass-fed within three decades. Unfortunately these current levels of growth for organic, no matter how impressive they seem, will not be enough to prevent the current (food- and farm-related) public health, environmental and climate crises from metastasizing into a full-blown catastrophe within 25 years or less. That’s why my organization, the Organic Consumers Association is organizing for what we call a Consumer and Political Revolution 2017-2020.</p>
<p>Although the majority of consumers—no matter whether they voted for Hillary (65 million), Trump (62 million), or stayed home and didn’t vote (92 million)—tell pollsters that they know that organic food is superior to chemical/GMO food, in terms of nutrition and environmental impact, and that they believe that pesticides, synthetic hormones, antibiotic residues and GMOs are dangerous, Congress keeps subsidizing industrial agriculture, factory farms, processed food and GMO corn-derived ethanol to the tune of billions of dollars a year. At the same time, lawmakers show little or no support for organic or transition-to-organic farmers or programs.</p>
<p>100% grass-fed beef and dairy products are now the fastest growing segment of grocery store sales. Yet most grass-fed beef and cheese is imported from overseas (Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay) for the most part because here in the U.S., the USDA subsidizes factory-farm meat and animal products, rather than helping U.S. ranchers, farmers and processors move toward grass-fed, pasture-based, and regenerative production.</p>
<p>The Obama Administration behaved very much like the Bush Administration before it, providing little or no support for organic farming while touting the supposed benefits of GMOs, hi-tech agriculture, ethanol and agribusiness-friendly free trade agreements. Despite promises made in 2007 on the campaign trail that his administration would require mandatory labels on GMOs, Obama did nothing. In 2016, when Congress (including a number of recent Trump cabinet appointees) rammed through the controversial Roberts/Stabenow/Pompeo Dark Act, taking away the rights of states to require mandatory GMO labeling, Obama remained silent—instead of using his veto power.</p>
<p><a href="http://ronnie.organicconsumers.org/trumps-dark-forces-coming-organic-food/" target="_blank">Read more on Ronnie's Blog</a></p></div></div></div>Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:23:00 +0000judy1034811 at https://www.organicconsumers.org'Dark Forces' Are Coming for Your Organic Foodhttps://www.organicconsumers.org/news/dark-forces-are-coming-your-organic-food
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/organlink">All About Organics</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/politics-globalization">Politics &amp; Globalization</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Tom Philpott</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Mother Jones</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">February 9, 2017</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/02/dark-forces-organic</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-37331" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/evil-pears-mean-bad-gmo-fruit-food-produce-cc-1000x523jpg">evil pears mean bad gmo fruit food produce cc 1000x523.jpg</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/evil_pears_mean_bad_gmo_fruit_food_produce_1000x523.jpg?itok=nVaEF4UT" alt="Three red pears with cartoon evil faces" title="Three red pears with cartoon evil faces" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><strong>So says the former Obama USDA appointee who helped create national organic standards.</strong><br /><br />The Freedom Caucus is a rowdy band of GOP US House members most famous for <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/14/a-house-divided" target="_blank">triggering government shutdowns</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/freedom-caucus-ramps-up-pressure-to-repeal-obamacare/article/2613719" target="_blank">pushing to repeal the Affordable Care Act</a>, and <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-hard-line-republicans-who-pushed-john-boehner-out/" target="_blank">driving former GOP Speaker John Boehner from his post</a> on the theory he wasn't conservative enough. And now they're coming for your certified-organic food.<br /><br />Back in December, the Freedom Caucus released a <a href="http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000159-020c-d78a-a5dd-1f9c53400001" target="_blank">"recommended list of regulations to remove."</a> Among its 228 targets—ranging from eliminating energy efficiency standards for washing machines to kiboshing rules on private drones—the group named the National Organic Program.</p>
<p>Operated by the US Department of Agriculture, the <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP-2015StrategicPlan.pdf" target="_blank">NOP</a> was established by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 to set uniform national standards for foods and agricultural products labeled "USDA Organic," replacing the patchwork of state-level standards that had held sway for decades previously. The NOP ensures that food labeled organic really is raised without synthetic pesticides and fertilizers—it also oversees USDA-accredited organic certifying agents and takes "appropriate enforcement actions if there are violations of the organic standards," <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP-2015StrategicPlan.pdf" target="_blank">according to</a> the USDA.</p>
<p>As of 2015, <a href="https://www.ota.com/news/press-releases/19031" target="_blank">annual organic food sales</a> stood at $39.7 billion, representing nearly 5 percent of total food sales. And sales for organics are growing at an 11 percent annual clip—nearly four times the rate of overall US food sales.</p>
<p>It's not clear what the Freedom Caucus meant by putting the National Organic Program on a list of regulations to "remove"; the staff of US Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the Freedom Caucus stalwart who authored the list, has not returned my calls and emails asking for clarification. Organic food makes a strange target for deregulation, because organic regulations only apply to farms and food processors that voluntarily accept them. They prohibit, say, the spraying of synthetic pesticides only for a very certain kind of operation—ones that want to be certified organic.</p></div></div></div>Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:26:00 +0000Pam1034716 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgMonsanto and Its Minions Are Poisoning Us: How Can We Defend Ourselves?https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/monsanto-and-its-minions-are-poisoning-us-how-can-we-defend-ourselves
<div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">January 11, 2017</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Organic Consumers Association</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Ronnie Cummins</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/organlink">All About Organics</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/food-safety">Food Safety</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/health-issues">Health Issues</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-47161" class="file file-image file-image-png" class="file file-image file-image-png">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/skull1000x523png">skull_1000x523.png</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/skull_1000x523.png?itok=4QV7PFex" alt="Skull" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Monsanto (soon to be Bayer) and their minions are poisoning us. Yet another independent peer-reviewed scientific study (article linked below) has confirmed that Monsanto’s notorious weedkiller, Roundup, sprayed on most major agricultural crops and animal feed, including corn, soy, canola, sugar beets, cotton, wheat, alfalfa, and beans–contaminating the majority of the non-organic foods in U.S. grocery stores, restaurants, and school lunch cafeterias–is toxic, even at the routine parts per billion or trillion level ingested by most Americans everyday.</p>
<p>Roundup is everywhere, in our food, in our cotton clothing, in our urine, in our breast milk, in the rain, in our drinking water, rivers, fish, and wildlife. Following up on the declaration of a respected scientific panel of the World Health Organization in 2016 that Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate) likely causes cancer, compounded by numerous studies linking Monsanto’s top-selling herbicide to <a href="http://detoxproject.org/glyphosate/hormone-hacking/" target="_blank">hormone disruption</a>, birth defects, kidney damage, and other diseases, the question we should be asking today is not whether we need more proof that the Biotech Bully of St. Louis is deliberately poisoning us for profit, aided and abetted by indentured scientists, media hacks, and politicians; but rather how do we drive Monsanto’s Roundup and Roundup-tainted foods off the market?</p>
<p>Hint number one: don’t hold your breath for the Trump administration, Congress, or the regulatory agencies to ban or even restrict the use of Roundup and the thousands of other pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and chemical fertilizers contaminating our food and water and destroying our soils’ ability to sequester carbon and re-stabilize our dangerously out of control climate. Trump’s new regime is filled with “business as usual” Monsanto cheerleaders, Wall Street bankers, and corporate cronies who love industrial agriculture and America’s fossil fuel suicide economy.</p>
<p>Hint number two: don’t expect Big Food companies, fast food giants, retail supermarket chains, school cafeterias and institutional food providers to voluntarily remove Roundup and other agri-toxics from their product lines and menus.</p>
<p>Hint number three: don’t rely on the fraudulently labeled “natural,” “all natural,” or “non-GMO” brands of companies such as <a href="https://action.organicconsumers.org/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=19757" target="_blank">Ben and Jerry’s</a>, Dannon, General Mills, Kellogg’s, or Whole Foods’ 365 brand, to keep Roundup and other poisons out of your food.</p>
<p>The only way to protect yourself and your family from toxic pesticides such as Roundup, as well as the other poisons laced into your food, is to buy certified organic and 100% grass-fed foods today and everyday, or else buy organic and transition to organic (certified or not) products from farmers and ranchers in your local area that you know and trust. Or better yet, grow your own, or at least some of your own food.</p>
<p>It’s important in terms of consumer self-defense to understand that most GMOs and toxic herbicides such as Roundup end up, not only in non-organic fruits and vegetables, but also, in fact predominately, as ingredients in processed food, cooking oils, and animal feed. Ninety percent of U.S. corn and soybeans for example, most of which is Monsanto’s “GMO Roundup Ready,” is used to produce high fructose corn syrup (a common junk food ingredient), low grade cooking oil, animal feed, and ethanol.</p>
<p>Most U.S. consumers don’t yet fully understand that the poisons such as Roundup, atrazine, dicamba, neonicotinoids, and “Agent Orange” 2,4 D, coated on seeds or sprayed on crops for animal feed end up in your milk, your ice cream, your hamburger, your eggs, or your fried chicken. Don’t believe “natural” or “non-GMO” claims unless the product is organic or 100% grass-fed, We are what we eat. But we are also what our farm animals (and fish) eat. Boycott factory farmed foods, not only in the grocery store, but in restaurants as well.</p>
<p>If we can’t trust the government or the large corporations, we need to take matters into our own hands, today and everyday. Take control of your health and your diet. Protect our common home, the Earth’s environment and the climate. We need a #ConsumerRevolution and we need it now. Join up with the <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/" target="_blank">Organic Consumers Association</a> and Millions Against Monsanto to drive Roundup and other poisons off the market. Together we can begin to organize a food and political revolution in 2017-2020 that will move us toward a food, farming, and land use system that is not only healthy and just, but <a href="http://regenerationinternational.org/" target="_blank">Regenerative</a> and climate-friendly as well.</p>
<p>Source: <em><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4102990/Britain-s-used-pesticide-linked-deadly-liver-disease-shocking-new-study-claims.html" target="_blank">Britain’s most used pesticide is linked to a serious liver disease which can be fatal, shocking new study claims.</a></em></p></div></div></div>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:24:00 +0000Ronnie1050331 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgSix Reasons We’ll Need to Ramp Up the #ConsumerRevolution under Trumpismhttps://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/six-reasons-we%E2%80%99ll-need-ramp-consumerrevolution-under-trumpism
<div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">December 1, 2016</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Organic Consumers Association</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Katherine Paul</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/genetic-engineering">Genetic Engineering</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/politics-globalization">Politics &amp; Globalization</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-35496" class="file file-image file-image-png" class="file file-image file-image-png">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/revolution-rally-protest-rebellion-silhouette-cc-420x280png">revolution rally protest rebellion silhouette cc 420x280.png</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/revolution_rally_protest_rebellion_silhouette_420x280.png?itok=3WomOioF" alt="Silhouette of a group of people carrying flags in revolution" title="Silhouette of a group of people carrying flags in revolution" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>If ever conditions were ripe for revolution, that time is now—especially for anyone who cares about their health, and the health of planet earth. <br /><br />President-Elect Donald Trump’s short lists for his environment and agriculture cabinet appointments are dominated by entrenched D.C. insiders, career politicians and industry lobbyists. Not one of these proposed “leaders” supports policies that would lead to healthier food, a cleaner environment or a cooler planet. <br /><br />So much for “draining the swamp.” And so much for an easy road to forward progress on food, ag and climate policy under our future <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/presidents-diet-and-what-it-says-about-america" target="_blank">fast-food leader</a>. <br /><br />On November 15, POLITICO said it had obtained a list of talking points that “offer a roadmap on how President-Elect Donald Trump's agriculture secretary could shape agricultural policies, including the sweeping promise to <em>‘defend American agriculture against its critics,’”</em>. . (emphasis ours).<br /><br />This “promise” directly contradicts what a Trump campaign manager told me in a phone conversation, just days before the election. In an attempt to capitalize on a negative <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/hillary-clinton-suffers-monsanto-bombshell-eve-us-election" target="_blank">story</a> about Hillary Clinton’s Monsanto ties, the Trump operative tried talk us into circulating a press release claiming that Trump was anti-GMO and anti-Monsanto. Predictably, those claims proved untrue, as we explain below. <br /><br />But there’s something even more troubling about the “sweeping promise” talking point. It’s this: the use of the term “American agriculture.” The authors of this memo are referring to the industrial, chemical- and pesticide-intensive GMO monoculture-crop agriculture that dominates the U.S. landscape. By intentionally branding this system “American” agriculture, the authors (politicians) can make the case for painting those of us who oppose pesticides and degenerative agriculture as <em>anti</em>-American.<br /><br />Not cool.<br /><br />Before we get to the list of reasons we’ll need a bigger and better #ConsumerRevolution in the coming months and years, a word to our regular readers and others who consider themselves to be aligned with OCA’s mission, but who also voted for Trump. The bullet points below, based on announcements by the Trump team, signal clearly that this administration will oppose (with a few exceptions, such as the TPP deal) almost every issue OCA advocates for on behalf of consumers. It’s our job to highlight Trump’s positions on these issues, even at the risk of offending some of our supporters.<br /><br />You should also know, if you haven’t already realized it, that OCA has never held back when it comes to criticizing candidates and politicians who are on the wrong side of the issues we fight for, regardless of their party affiliation. If you search our website, you’ll find plenty of instances where we have called out Hillary Clinton for being on the wrong side of public and environmental health, including her cozy relationship with Monsanto. We’ve done the same with President Obama— for pushing the corporate-friendly TPP trade agreement, and for failing to make good on his promise to label GMOs. (Instead of using his veto power, Obama <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/press/obama-betrays-consumers-signs-sham-gmo-labeling-bill" target="_blank">signed</a> into law the DARK Act, forever depriving consumers of the right to know what’s in their food).<br /><br />It’s our job to speak truth to power—regardless of who holds that power. And speaking of power . . . with the coming influx of pro-Monsanto, pro-pesticide, pro-factory farm, anti-environment, anti-health, climate deniers in Congress, we predict our complaints to federal policymakers will largely fall on deaf ears. More than ever, we will need to use our buying power to hit the corporations that pollute and poison where it hurts—their bottom line.<br /><br />Here are six reasons we need to ramp up the #ConsumerRevolution.<br /><br /><strong>Reason #1: GMOs/Health.</strong> No use looking to the Trump administration to support policies that promote healthful, nutrient-dense, GMO-free food. As the New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/donald-trump-diet.html" target="_blank">reported</a> in August, Trump—a “junk food aficionado”—is happiest feasting on Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonald’s burgers and fries. <br /><br />It’s no surprise then that Trump’s <a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/trump-campaign-announces-agricultural-advisory-committee" target="_blank">Agriculture Advisory Committee</a> includes none other than Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) who, along with Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) in July 2016, rammed through the DARK Act, the bill that nullified Vermont’s mandatory GMO labeling law, and permanently stripped U.S. consumers of the right to know if our foods contain pesticide-drenched genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Kiss goodbye any hope of <a href="http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=19494" target="_blank">repealing</a> the DARK Act in 2017—it’s here to stay, under Trump. (Trump <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/trump-talk-of-pompeo-for_b_13059008.html" target="_blank">reportedly</a> offered the position of CIA chief to Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), author of the House version of the DARK Act. Pompeo may have little influence over food and ag policy from his new digs at the CIA, but it’s said he was offered the job because of his “loyalty” to Trump).<br /><br /><strong>Reason #2: Pesticides.</strong> Any hope that the incoming U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will start protecting public health instead of Monsanto and the rest of the pesticide peddlers faded the minute Trump tapped Myron Ebell to lead his EPA transition team. Mother Jones <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/trumps-top-environmental-adviser-says-pesticides-arent-bad-you" target="_blank">reports</a> that Ebell, a self-proclaimed climate denier, <a href="https://cei.org/expert/myron-ebell" target="_blank">directs</a> the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a front group that runs <a href="http://www.safechemicalpolicy.org/" target="_blank">SafeChemicalPolicy.org</a>, a website devoted to downplaying the health and ecological impacts of chemicals. <br /><br />According to Mother Jones, the Center for Energy and Environment “dismisses the well-established existence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals as a myth conjured by ‘anti-chemical activists.’" That’s bad news, given the latest <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/stand-firm-hormone-disruptors" target="_blank">research</a> on endocrine disruptors. And it likely means we can expect little or no action from the EPA, which is currently weighing the pros and cons of renewing licenses for dangerous chemicals such as <a href="http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=19471" target="_blank">atrazine</a> and <a href="https://action.organicconsumers.org/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=19578" target="_blank">glyphosate</a>. <br /><br /><strong>Reason #3: Factory farms. </strong>Factory farming is a trillion-dollar industry that has a devastating impact on food quality, human health, animal welfare, farmworkers, rural communities, water quality, air pollution, biodiversity, and greenhouse gas emissions. According to <a href="https://meatonomics.com/2013/06/24/introducing-a-new-book-about-the-bizarre-economics-of-meat-and-dairy-production/" target="_blank">Meatonomics</a>, Americans pay $414 billion in hidden costs, including for healthcare, subsidies and environmental damage and clean-up related to factory farm production of meat, dairy and other animal products.<br /><br />If we want factory farms to be replaced by ranchers who use <a href="http://regenerationinternational.org/2016/03/15/the-role-of-ruminants-in-reducing-agricultures-carbon-footprint-in-north-america/" target="_blank">regenerative grazing practices</a>, or dairy farmers who produce organic milk from pasture-raised cows, we’ll have to boycott the factory farmers—because we surely won’t get any help from the Trump administration when it comes to regulating factory farms or holding them accountable.</p>
<p>How do we know? Just look at who Trump has surrounded himself with. Charles Herbster, owner of both a Nebraska cattle-breeding company and a company that sells chemicals and fertilizers, is heading up Trump’s Agricultural Advisory Committee. According to the latest report from POLITICO, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue is a leading contender for U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. In 2009, Perdue signed a bill into law that <a href="https://animallawcoalition.com/ga-gov-approves-bill-to-stop-local-regulation-of-factory-farms/" target="_blank">blocked</a> local communities in Georgia from regulating factory farms to address animal cruelty, pollution or any other hazards. After meeting with Trump on November 30, Perdue told POLITICO: “ [Trump] knew what it takes to make America great again by doing the things we do well, which is agriculture, for one, and to free up farmers from the regulations that we see. He was spot on those issues." The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a front group for the GMO industry, named Perdue their 2009 <a href="https://www.bio.org/media/press-release/biotechnology-industry-organization-honors-georgia-governor-sonny-perdue-governo" target="_blank">Governor of the Year</a>.<br /><br /><strong>Reason #4: Global warming.</strong> Trump, who famously <a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en" target="_blank">tweeted</a> that climate change “was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive” wasted no time in announcing his intent to <a href="http://www.dw.com/en/why-trump-scrapping-nasa-climate-funding-is-bad-news-for-our-planet/a-36569529" target="_blank">de-fund</a> the U.S. NASA climate research program. International climate scientists denounced the plan, stating that loss of the program will “devastate” global climate research.<br /><br />Trump has also vowed to withdraw the U.S. from the global Paris Climate Treaty, in a move guaranteed to leave the U.S. in the dust when it comes to advances in renewable energy and <a href="http://regenerationinternational.org/soil-carbon-restoration-white-paper" target="_blank">soil carbon sequestration</a> programs aimed at reducing emissions and drawing down excess carbon from the atmosphere. It’s difficult to imagine that the “leader of the free world” would betray future generations by ignoring what is generally recognized as the greatest threat to civilization today, including to U.S. <a href="http://time.com/4101903/climate-change-national-security/" target="_blank">national security</a> and to the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/14/climate-change-disaster-is-biggest-threat-to-global-economy-in-2016-say-experts" target="_blank">global economy</a>. But there you have it.</p>
<p><strong>Reason #5: Water pollution.</strong> It’s been <a href="http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15070#sthash.T6mj6AX3.dpuf" target="_blank">42 years</a> since Congress passed the Clean Water Act. But loopholes in the Act, along with attempts by big polluters (including agribusiness) to weaken the law, have left millions of acres of wetlands, and approximately 60 percent of America’s rivers and streams unprotected. The EPA has been trying to restore protection to those wetlands and waters—the source of drinking water for 117 million Americans. But factory farm lobbyists have fiercely opposed tighter regulations. So, it seems, will the Trump administration.<br /><br />Under the proposed <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/who-should-clean-big-ag’s-mess" target="_blank">Waters of the U.S.</a> rule, the EPA set out to un-muddy the waters around which types of waters are, and are not, covered under the original Clean Water Act. According to his campaign’s <a href="https://www.greatagain.gov/" target="_blank">official transition website</a>, the Trump administration wants to roll back the Obama Administration’s effort to clarify the rules around water pollution. That means we can forget about forcing companies like Tyson Foods, which dumps more toxic pollution into the nation’s waters than any other agribusiness, to clean up after themselves.<br /><br />Another bad sign for the Waters of the U.S. rule? Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general, is on Trump’s short list for EPA administrator. Pruitt is an outspoken opponent of the EPA's efforts to address factory farms that pollute drinking water. He was one of the first state attorneys general to file suit against the EPA over the rule. His position against protecting drinking water from factory farm waste has no doubt been shaped by his <a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=6583668" target="_blank">campaign contributors</a>, who include the Oklahoma Farm Bureau (OFB) and Monsanto.<br /><br /><strong>Reason #6: Animal welfare.</strong> It goes without saying that anyone who supports factory farming doesn’t lose any sleep over the physical, much less emotional suffering of animals. Trump is no exception, as the Humane Society Legislative Fund pointed out in an <a href="http://blog.hslf.org/political_animal/2016/08/we-already-knew-that-donald-trump-would-be-bad-news-for-wildlifehes-got-two-sons-who-travel-the-globe-to-slay-rare-wild.html" target="_blank">article</a> titled, “Trump's ag A-team a royal flush of animal protection haters.” <br /><br />The article calls Trump’s Agricultural Advisory Committee “a veritable rogues gallery of anti-animal crusaders.” From the article:</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">The group boasts a wealthy funder of an anti-animal super PAC, politicians who sponsored state “ag-gag” measures and opposed the most modest animal welfare bills, and leaders of the factory farming industry. It’s an unmistakable signal from the Trump campaign that he will be an opponent of animal welfare—a show of overt hostility toward the cause of animal protection that raises serious concerns for the humane movement about a potential Trump administration.</p>
<p>The Humane Society of the U.S. named Pruitt (Oklahoma attorney general and potential EPA administrator under Trump) the nation's <a href="https://www.thedodo.com/the-fur-feathers-and-scales-of-963070451.html" target="_blank">least animal friendly</a> attorney general for teaming up with the Oklahoma Farm Bureau to oppose “efforts to crack down on puppy mills, horse slaughter, the exotic pet trade, factory farming, and just about every other animal welfare issue you can think of.”<br /><br />We could go on, but a person can take only so much bad news at once. For now, suffice it to say that at the federal policy level, consumers will have little or no say over matters that have a dramatic—sometimes devastating—impact on our health and the environment. That means we’ll need to take our battle to the marketplace.<br /><br /><em>Katherine Paul is associate director of the <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/" target="_blank">Organic Consumers Association</a>.</em> </p></div></div></div>Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:19:00 +0000Katherine1031596 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgTell the Senate: Don't Let Monsanto Run the USDA and EPA!https://www.organicconsumers.org/node/1031591
<div class="field field-name-field-belong-to-campaign field-type-entityreference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Belong to campaign:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/campaigns/millions-against-monsanto">Millions Against Monsanto</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/campaigns/usda-watch">USDA Watch</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Category:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/genetic-engineering">Genetic Engineering</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/politics-globalization">Politics &amp; Globalization</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-area-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Area:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/usa">USA</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/250x250/public/wrong_way_street_sign_sunny_420x280.jpg?itok=KEfwiYW3" width="250" height="167" alt="&amp;#039;Wrong Way&amp;#039; Street Sign" title="&amp;#039;Wrong Way&amp;#039; Street Sign" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Are you a fan of pesticide-free food and clean water? Think your tax dollars should subsidize organic regenerative agriculture, not Monsanto’s toxic degenerative agriculture? Then you won't like the direction things are headed under the Trump administration.</p>
<p>Here’s what we know so far about President-Elect Donald Trump’s picks for leadership posts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Based on their track records, Trump’s appointees will likely let companies like Monsanto dictate food, agriculture and environmental policy.</p>
<p>The only thing standing between Monsanto and near-total control of the USDA and EPA? The U.S. Senate, whose job it is to approve about 1,100 presidential nominees before Trump’s cast of characters can step into their new posts. Discouraged or not, it's <em>our</em> job to pressure the Senate to reject any appointee who won't commit to doing his or her job—which is to protect public health, not Monsanto.</p>
<p><a href="https://action.organicconsumers.org/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=19679" target="_blank"><strong>TAKE ACTION: Tell your Senators, Don’t Let Monsanto Run the USDA and EPA!</strong></a></p>
<p> <a href="/node/1031591" class="more-link">Read more</a></p></div></div></div>Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:13:00 +0000Melinda1031591 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgTell Your Representative to Stop Big Food’s "Secrecy" Rider!https://www.organicconsumers.org/node/1028536
<div class="field field-name-field-belong-to-campaign field-type-entityreference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Belong to campaign:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/campaigns/usda-watch">USDA Watch</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Category:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/politics-globalization">Politics &amp; Globalization</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-area-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Area:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/usa">USA</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/250x250/public/top_secret_420x280.png?itok=C3miqVqB" width="250" height="167" alt="Black file with &amp;quot;top secret&amp;quot; on the cover " title="Black file with &amp;quot;top secret&amp;quot; on the cover " /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Last year, The American Egg Board (AEB) was caught in the act trying to sabotage Hampton Creek, a company that markets a plant-based egg-free alternative and a product called “Just Mayo,” an egg-free mayonnaise. Board members view Hampton Creek as a threat to the $5.5-billion-a-year egg industry.<br /><br />A series of emails, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) revealed the details of AEB’s vendetta against Hampton Creek and its CEO, Josh Tetrick. (Michele Simon, Eat Drink Politics, reported on the emails, including one in which Mike Sencer, executive vice president of AEB member Hidden Villa Ranch, wrote: "Can we pool our money and put a hit on him [Tetrick]?").<br /><br />Now, some of the largest U.S. food producers and their lobbyists, want Congress to shield groups like AEB from FOIA requests. With help from their friends in the U.S. House of Representatives, they’ve attached a rider to the House agricultural appropriations bill that would exempt groups like AEB from FOIA requests.<br /><br /><a href="https://action.organicconsumers.org/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=19418" target="_blank"><b>TAKE ACTION: Tell Your Representative to Stop Big Food’s "Secrecy" Rider!</b></a><a href="/node/1028536" class="more-link">Read more</a></p></div></div></div>Thu, 15 Sep 2016 00:54:00 +0000Melinda1028536 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgGovernment-Backed Egg Lobby Tried to Crack Food Startup, Emails Showhttps://www.organicconsumers.org/news/government-backed-egg-lobby-tried-crack-food-startup-emails-show
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/food-safety">Food Safety</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Sam Thielman</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">The Guardian</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">September 15, 2016</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/02/usda-american-egg-board-hampton-creek-just-mayo</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-33731" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/eggs-shell-cracked-open-bowl-cc-420x280jpg">eggs shell cracked open bowl cc 420x280.jpg</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/eggs_shell_cracked_open_bowl_420x280.jpg?itok=B0rcMXHX" alt="Several eggs in a bowl with one cracked open" title="Several eggs in a bowl with one cracked open" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><strong>USDA official joined American Egg Board in planning to ruin Hampton Creek, Silicon Valley firm that created plant-based egg alternative and Just Mayo</strong></p>
<p>A US government-appointed agricultural body tried to crush a Silicon Valley food startup after concluding the company represented a “major threat” and “crisis” for the $5.5bn-a-year egg industry, according to documents obtained by the Guardian.</p>
<p>In potential conflict with rules that govern how it can spend its funds, the American Egg Board (AEB) lobbied for a concerted attack on Hampton Creek, a food company that has created a low-cost plant-based egg replacement and the maker of Just Mayo, a mayonnaise alternative.</p>
<p>In a series of emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (Foia), AEB staff, a US department of agriculture official and egg industry executives attempted to orchestrate the attack.</p>
<p>The documents were obtained by Ryan Shapiro, a Foia expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Shapiro’s Washington DC-based Foia-specialist attorney, Jeffrey Light, and passed to Hampton Creek.</p>
<p>Among the efforts coordinated between the AEB, the USDA and the egg industry:</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">• Outgoing AEB head Joanne Ivy advised Unilever on how to proceed against Hampton Creek after the food giant filed a false advertising lawsuit against its rival last year.<br /><br />• The Department of Agriculture’s national supervisor of shell eggs joined the AEB in its attack on Hampton Creek, suggesting Ivy contact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) directly about Just Mayo with her concerns. The FDA later ruled Just Mayo must change its name.<br /><br />• The AEB attempted to have Just Mayo blocked from Whole Foods, asking Anthony Zolezzi, a partner at private equity firm Pegasus Capital Advisors and self-described “eco-entrepreneur”, to use his influence with Whole Foods to drop the product. (Whole Foods still sells Just Mayo.)<br /><br />• More than one member of the AEB made joking threats of violence against Hampton Creek’s founder, Josh Tetrick. “Can we pool our money and put a hit on him?” asked Mike Sencer, executive vice-president of AEB member organization Hidden Villa Ranch. Mitch Kanter, executive vice-president of the AEB, jokingly offered “to contact some of my old buddies in Brooklyn to pay Mr. Tetrick a visit”.</p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new2 field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Source Author 2:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Dominic Rushe</div></div></div>Mon, 15 Aug 2016 16:24:00 +0000Pam1028541 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgMore Coca-Cola Ties Seen Inside U.S. Centers for Disease Controlhttps://www.organicconsumers.org/news/more-coca-cola-ties-seen-inside-us-centers-disease-control
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/food-safety">Food Safety</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/health-issues">Health Issues</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Carey Gillam</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">U.S. Right to Know</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">July 31, 2016</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">http://usrtk.org/food-related-diseases/more-coca-cola-ties-seen-inside-u-s-centers-for-disease-control/</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-32221" class="file file-image file-image-png" class="file file-image file-image-png">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/coke-bottles-420x280">Coke Bottles 420x280</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/coke.png?itok=U9b1FYAU" alt="Coca-Cola bottles" title="Coca-Cola bottles" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>In June, Dr. Barbara Bowman, a high-ranking official within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/cdc-official-exits-agency_b_10760490.html" target="_blank">unexpectedly departed the agency</a>, two days after information came to light indicating that she had been communicating regularly with – and offering guidance to – a leading Coca-Cola advocate seeking to influence world health authorities on sugar and beverage policy matters.</p>
<p>Now, more emails suggest that another veteran CDC official has similarly close ties to the global soft drink giant. <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/pdf/orgchart-nccd-508.pdf" target="_blank">Michael Pratt</a>, Senior Advisor for Global Health in the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the CDC, has a history of promoting and helping lead research funded by Coca-Cola. Pratt also works closely with the nonprofit corporate interest group set up by Coca-Cola called the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), emails obtained through Freedom of Information requests show.</p>
<p>Pratt did not respond to questions about his work, which includes a position as a <a href="http://www.ph-leader.emory.edu/people/bio-section-faculty/pratt_m.html" target="_blank">professor at Emory University</a>, a private research university in Atlanta that has received <a href="http://www.ph-leader.emory.edu/people/bio-section-faculty/pratt_m.html" target="_blank">millions of dollars</a> from the Coca-Cola Foundation and <a href="http://woodruff.org/about-the-foundation/robert-w-woodruff/" target="_blank">more than $100 million</a> from famed longtime Coca-Cola leader Robert W. Woodruff and Woodruff’s brother George. Indeed, Coca-Cola’s financial support for Emory is so strong that the university <a href="http://www.emory.edu/home/about/history/index.html" target="_blank">states on its website</a> that “it’s unofficially considered poor school spirit to drink other soda brands on campus.”</p></div></div></div>Mon, 01 Aug 2016 08:25:00 +0000Heather1026246 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgThere's Something Disturbing About One of Hillary's Top VP Pickshttps://www.organicconsumers.org/news/theres-something-disturbing-about-one-hillarys-top-vp-picks
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/genetic-engineering">Genetic Engineering</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/politics-globalization">Politics &amp; Globalization</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Tom Philpott</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Mother Jones</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">July 19, 2016</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/07/hillary-clinton-vilsack-veep-food-agriculture-companies%20</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-23741" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/tom-vilsack-420x280">Tom Vilsack 420x280</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/vilsack_420x280.jpg?itok=nu-Yui4B" alt="Sec. Tom Vilsack" title="Sec. Tom Vilsack" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><strong>5 things to know about USDA chief Tom Vilsack, who's emerged at the top of HRC's Veep shortlist.</strong></p>
<p>Tom Vilsack is a trendy guy—but only if by "trendy," you mean "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normcore" target="_blank">normcore</a>." He has spent the past eight years as secretary of the US Department of Agriculture—the country cousin of presidential cabinet positions. He's a <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/text/s.php?sId=98409347&amp;m=1" target="_blank">solid centrist Democrat</a> from Iowa, where he <a href="http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&amp;contentid=bios_vilsack.xml" target="_blank">served</a> two terms as governor, as well as a stint as mayor of a town called Mt. Pleasant (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pleasant,_Iowa" target="_blank">pop. 8,668</a>). He <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/vilsack-stock-rises-as-clinton-nears-vp-pick-225789" target="_blank">even calls himself</a> a "workhorse, not a show horse." But he has been generating <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12188060/tom-vilsack-vp-vice-president" target="_blank">massive buzz</a> as the possible vice-presidential pick of presumptive Dem nominee Hillary Clinton, recently <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/vilsack-stock-rises-as-clinton-nears-vp-pick-225789" target="_blank">catapulting</a> to the upper echelons of her Veep shortlist.</p>
<p>If she picks Vilsack and the ticket wins (the polling site 538 gives Clinton a <a href="http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/" target="_blank">63 percent chance</a> to prevail in November), the country will have its first vice president to be plucked the from the USDA since Franklin Roosevelt tapped Vilsack's fellow Iowan Henry Wallace in 1940. In other words, we'd have a food/farm policy wonk a heartbeat away from the presidency.</p>
<p>But what kind of food policy wonk is Vilsack?</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><strong>1. He's no stranger to agribiz.</strong> As Iowa governor, Vilsack endeared himself to the state's ag interests. Back in 2001, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)—a trade group <a href="https://www.bio.org/bio-member-directory" target="_blank">representing</a> seed/agrichemical players Monsanto, DuPont, BASF, Bayer, and Syngenta, etc—<a href="https://www.bio.org/media/press-release/iowas-vilsack-named-bio-governor-year" target="_blank">named</a> him "Governor of the Year" for his "support of the industry's economic growth and agricultural biotechnology research." He also <a href="http://governors%20ethanol%20coalition%2C%20governors%20biotechnology%20partnership%2C/" target="_blank">chaired</a> the Governors Ethanol Coalition and the Governors Biotechnology Partnership. Not long after stepping down from the Iowa governor post in 2006, Vilsack <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/former-iowa-governor-thomas-j-vilsack-joins-dorsey--whitney-law-firm-58263867.html" target="_blank">joined</a> the Minneapolis-based corporate law firm Dorsey &amp; Whitney, to "provide advice to clients in the fields of energy conservation, renewable energy and <a href="https://www.dorsey.com/services/food-and-agribusiness" target="_blank">agribusiness development</a>."<br /> <br /><strong>2. But he's also a champion of alternative food systems.</strong> Surely he had a part in President Barack Obama's choice of Kathleen Merrigan, a long-time champion of organic agriculture, to be Vilsack's deputy secretary of ag in 2009, a post she filled <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/03/usdas-sustainable-food-champion-steps-down" target="_blank">until 2013</a>.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">Merrigan famously rolled out the "<a href="http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/knowyourfarmer?navid=KNOWYOURFARMER" target="_blank">Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food</a>" program, which made a concerted effort to marshal USDA resources to support local and regional food systems that had been largely neglected by the billions of dollars per year the USDA spends propping up massive-scale chemical-intensive ag as dictated by Congressionally mandated farm policy. KYF, as it's known, did not allocate any new funds—the USDA can only spend what Congress mandates—but as I put it in a 2011 post, the program represents the USDA's "most high-profile acknowledgement since the post-war rise of industrial agriculture that alternative food systems exist, matter, and deserve support."</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">KYF raised the profile of alternatives to Big Ag enough on the national stage to <a href="http://www.farmpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/JM_SC_PR_Know-Your-Farmers.pdf" target="_blank">enrage some of the industry's most powerful allies in Congress</a>—an attack Merrigan fought off, with Vilsack's support.<br /> <br /><strong>3. He loves GMOs.</strong> Under federal law, the USDA is charged with vetting new genetically modified crops before they enter farm fields. According to Patty Lovera, assistant director of the watchdog group Food and Water Watch, Vilsack's USDA "has been the most GMO-friendly ever." She pointed to a landmark 2011 decision to approve Kentucky bluegrass engineered to resist the herbicide glyphosate. As I explained in a <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/07/usda-deregulate-roundup-gmo-tom-philpott" target="_blank">detailed post at the time</a>, the decision set a precedent for greenlighting future GMO crops without any assessment of environmental impact—a massive win for the industry. Lovera also pointed to another USDA decision in 2011: the <a href="http://grist.org/article/2011-01-27-in-stunning-reversal-usda-chief-vilsack-greenlights-monsantos-al/" target="_blank">deregulation of glyphosate-resistant alfalfa</a>, even after acknowledging that the crop could cross-pollinate with organic and non-GM alfalfa. (A <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143296" target="_blank">2015 study</a> by USDA researchers confirmed that GM alfalfa does indeed promiscuously cross-pollinate.)</p></div></div></div>Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:17:00 +0000Pam1025441 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgAmericans Are Buying Gene-Edited Food That's Not Labeled GMOhttps://www.organicconsumers.org/news/americans-are-buying-gene-edited-food-thats-not-labeled-gmo
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/genetic-engineering">Genetic Engineering</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Craig Giammona</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Bloomberg</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">July 13, 2016</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-14/gene-edited-canola-oil-arrives-without-gmo-style-shopper-outrage</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-31711" class="file file-image file-image-png" class="file file-image file-image-png">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/canola-flower-750x500png">canola flower 750x500.png</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/canola_flower.png?itok=AEfMH_P7" alt="flowering canola plant in field of canola" title="flowering canola plant in field of canola" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Products made possible through gene-editing have landed on grocery shelves. Whether they’ll stay there is up to shoppers wary of technological tinkering.</p>
<p>Food companies are now required to label GMOs in Vermont, and debate is raging over a federal standard. But so far, regulators at the U.S. Department of Agriculture have taken a pass on overseeing gene-edited crops. They say cutting DNA from a plant is not the same as adding genes from another organism. So corn injected with outside DNA is classified a genetically modified organism, but canola that can tolerate herbicide because scientists removed a gene is not.</p>
<p>Industry giants like Monsanto Co., DuPont and Dow Chemical Co. have stepped through the regulatory void. They’ve struck licensing deals with smaller companies for gene-editing technology. U.S. farmers harvested 8,000 acres (3,237 hectares) last year of gene-edited canola processed into cooking oil marketed as non-GMO. Looming are U.S. consumers who’ve rejected GMO products despite a preponderance of evidence that they’re safe to grow and eat.</p>
<h3>Consumer Feeling</h3>
<p>“There’s a feeling among consumers that they want their food as close as possible to what nature intended,” said Carl Jorgenson, director of wellness strategy at Daymon Worldwide, a retail marketing firm. “There’s an overall distrust of Big Food and Big Science.”</p>
<p>Farmers and scientists have manipulated crops for thousands of years. Gene-editing is what proponents call a more precise version of mutation breeding that’s been used since the mid-1900s. Commercial varieties of edibles, including wheat, barley, rice and grapefruit, were created by mutating DNA with chemicals or radiation. </p>
<p>With GMOs, there’s suspicion among consumers. U.S. food companies spent millions fighting labeling requirements, fueling theories that GMOs are unhealthy. And there’s a sense that the benefits of genetically engineered crops have gone mainly to farmers and big agricultural companies that supply seeds and pesticides and not to consumers.</p>
<p>Doug Gurian-Sherman, director of sustainable agriculture at the Center for Food Safety, said today’s conversations about gene-editing remind him of GMOs in the 1990s -- the rhetoric is lofty and promises abound about healthier food and drought tolerance.</p>
<p>“This is largely unproven,” Gurian-Sherman said. “There’s a proclivity to believe we can develop new, useful technology that will answer tough problems.”</p></div></div></div>Fri, 15 Jul 2016 17:06:00 +0000Melinda1023876 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgGMO Mushroom Sidesteps USDA Regulationshttps://www.organicconsumers.org/news/gmo-mushroom-sidesteps-usda-regulations
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/genetic-engineering">Genetic Engineering</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Lorraine Chow</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">EcoWatch</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">April 19, 2016</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">http://ecowatch.com/2016/04/19/gmo-mushroom/</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-28416" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/mushroombrownkitchencookfood250x250jpg">mushroom_brown_kitchen_cook_food_250x250.jpg</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/mushroom_brown_kitchen_cook_food_250x250.jpg?itok=vxijbmUa" alt="GMO Mushroom Sidesteps UDSA Regulations" title="GMO Mushroom Sidesteps UDSA Regulations" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) said it will not regulate the potential cultivation and sale of a <a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/food-agriculture/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/" target="_blank">genetically modified (GMO)</a> mushroom the same way it regulates conventional GMOs because the mushroom was made with the genome-editing tool CRISPR-Cas9.</p>
<p>This is the first time the U.S. government has cleared a food product edited with the new and <a href="http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-crispr-cas-9-20151218-story.html" target="_blank">controversial</a> technique.</p>
<p>The USDA announced in a <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/reg_loi/15-321-01_air_response_signed.pdf" target="_blank">letter</a> last week that it had approved Pennsylvania State University plant pathologist Yinong Yang’s common white button mushroom (<em>Agaricus bosporus</em>) that’s engineered to be more resistant to <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/20/no-to-gmo-arctic-apple/" target="_blank">browning</a>. As the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) wrote on April 13:</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">The anti-browning trait reduces the formation of brown pigment (melanin), improving the appearance and shelf life of mushroom, and facilitating automated mechanical harvesting.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">Based on the information cited in your letter, APHIS has concluded that your CRISPR/Cas9-edited white button mushrooms as described in your letter do not contain any introduced genetic material. APHIS has no reason to believe that CRISPR/Cas9-edited white button mushrooms are plant pests.</p>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/gene-edited-crispr-mushroom-escapes-us-regulation-1.19754" target="_blank">Nature</a>, the mushroom was created by targeting the family of genes that encodes the enzyme polyphenol oxidase that causes browning. “By deleting just a handful of base pairs in the mushroom’s genome, Yang knocked out one of six PPO genes—reducing the enzyme’s activity by 30 percent,” Nature reported.</p>
<p>So why has this deliberately genetically modified “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/04/18/why-this-genetically-modified-mushroom-is-bypassing-usda-regulation/" target="_blank">frankenfungi</a>” escaped USDA scrutiny? Well, instead of the conventional method in which foreign DNA is spliced into a seed (i.e. Bt corn), genetic modification of Yang’s mushroom was achieved by altering its own genetic material.</p>
<p>As <a href="http://qz.com/662784/a-loophole-is-letting-genetically-modified-foods-sidestep-american-gmo-regulations/" target="_blank">Quartz</a> explained, a CRISPR-created product falls under a certain loophole:</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">Despite being directly and purposely genetically modified, USDA has allowed Yang’s mushroom to sidestep the regulatory system. The reason? Yang’s method does not contain “any introduced genetic material” from a plant pest such as bacteria or viruses. Conventional GMOs, the ones that the USDA’s rules are designed to deal with, are created by introducing foreign genes—for example, those of a bacteria might be introduced to give the crop some pest resistance.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the GMO mushroom could be the first of many new CRISPR-edited food products.</p>
<p>“The research community will be very happy with the news,” Caixia Gao, a plant biologist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’s Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology in Beijing, who was not involved in developing the mushroom, told Nature. “I am confident we’ll see more gene-edited crops falling outside of regulatory authority.”</p>
<p>Quartz reported that there are already several CRISPR projects in development, including DuPont’s drought-resistant wheat and corn, a <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-tweak-may-help-gene-edited-crops-bypass-biosafety-regulation-1.18590" target="_blank">banana</a> that can resist a fungus threatening that’s threatening its extinction and a herbicide-resistant oilseed from the biotech company Cibus.</p>
<p>GMO-opponents have already criticized the USDA’s move.<br />“The USDA decision is a perfect illustration of how weak regulations for evaluating genetically engineered crops are,” Patty Lovera of Food &amp; Water Watch, told Quartz.</p></div></div></div>Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:52:00 +0000Pam1020601 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgWhy Fruits and Vegetables Taste Better in Europehttps://www.organicconsumers.org/news/why-fruits-and-vegetables-taste-better-europe-0
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/organlink">All About Organics</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/food-safety">Food Safety</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Julia Belluz</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Vox</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">February 12, 2016</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">http://www.vox.com/2016/2/12/10972140/fruits-vegetables-taste-better-europe</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-28071" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/vegetabletomatolemonparsleypepperbowl420x280jpg">vegetable_tomato_lemon_parsley_pepper_bowl_420x280.jpg</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/vegetable_tomato_lemon_parsley_pepper_bowl_420x280.jpg?itok=hVHdaRYM" alt="Why fruits and vegetables taste better in Europe" title="Why fruits and vegetables taste better in Europe" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>In the summer of 2000, I had an encounter with pasta that changed my perception of food.</p>
<p>I was 16 and visiting family in a rural backwater in northeastern Italy. At a modest hotel restaurant, I ordered a plate of spaghetti with cherry tomatoes. The dish was revelatory. Despite the simple ingredients — pasta, tomatoes, basil, olive oil, salt — it was densely packed with flavor. The tomatoes had the perfect ratio of sweetness to acidity, tasting nothing like the watery produce I was used to in North America.</p>
<p>I’ve since learned that many people have similar experiences while traveling around the Mediterranean. In Italy (or France or Spain or Turkey), they'll find palate-awakening tomatoes (or watermelons or peaches or lemons) — and then wonder why food doesn't taste nearly as good in the United States. Why does Europe get amazing produce while we're left with pabulum?</p>
<p>I wanted to figure out why Americans seem to be cheated of these experiences, so I spoke to researchers who study agriculture, experts on flavor, and even cooks to find out.</p>
<p>I was surprised to hear that there’s no scientific explanation for the difference. There's nothing special about the sun in southern Italy or the soil in Turkey that makes those countries' produce taste better. The experts told me we can just as easily grow food in the United States that's as delicious as — or more delicious than — the food you eat in Europe. It's just that most of the time, we choose not to. The main difference between the food here and there, they all said, is culture and preferences.</p>
<h4><strong>American farmers put an emphasis on yield and durability, not flavor</strong></h4>
<p><a href="http://hos.ufl.edu/kleeweb/" target="_blank">Harry Klee</a>, a horticulture professor at the University of Florida, spent years developing a nutrient-dense tomato that also happens to taste great. It’s been called — by a <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2015/07/garden_gem_tomato_why_harry_klee_s_perfect_cultivar_isn_t_sold_in_supermarkets.html" target="_blank">panel of 500 experts</a> — one of the most delicious tomatoes on the planet. And it isn’t grown in the foothills of Mount Vesuvius, as Italy’s famous San Marzano tomatoes are. It’s grown right here in the US, in Gainesville, Florida.</p>
<p>Klee’s tomato, the Garden Gem, is also eminently durable, with a great shelf life and track record of disease resistance — properties growers care about. But he’s been told the Garden Gem is a little too small (about a half or a third the size of your average supermarket tomato). And that means it’d require more labor to pick, and therefore a little more cost. The fact that it's delicious doesn't count for much.</p>
<p>"The bottom line here with the industrial tomatoes is that tomatoes have been bred for yield, production, disease resistance," Klee told me. "The growers are not paid for flavor — they are paid for yield. So the breeders have given them this stuff that produces a lot of fruit but that doesn’t have any flavor."</p>
<p>That's why you see gigantic strawberries and fist-size apples on the store shelves. Since Americans like their produce big, and big fruit is more efficient to grow, growers do everything they can to supersize their fruit, even at the expense of flavor. (They do this through breeding, Klee added. Most fruits and vegetables in North America aren't GMOs.)</p>
<p>Klee’s tomatoes are unlikely to reach store shelves in the United States. In fact, the only serious interest he’s gotten so far has been from a group in Italy that purchased 10,000 of his seeds. It’s not that great food can’t be grown in the United States. It’s that the market values other things — size, durability — over flavor.</p>
<p>Or, as <a href="http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=66960X1516588&amp;site=Vox.com&amp;xs=1&amp;isjs=1&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FThe-Dorito-Effect-Surprising-Flavor%2Fdp%2F1476724210&amp;xguid=680d071bf94b746b430e2d0169194023&amp;xuuid=0e8f40d8591641dc90f1f250c948fcf4&amp;xsessid=97082e9f041e6ba88d26748c155d8fe4&amp;xcreo=0&amp;xed=0&amp;sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2F2016%2F2%2F12%2F10972140%2Ffruits-vegetables-taste-better-europe&amp;xtz=300" target="_blank">author</a> and flavor expert <a href="http://www.markschatzker.com/" target="_blank">Mark Schatzker</a> writes at <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2015/07/garden_gem_tomato_why_harry_klee_s_perfect_cultivar_isn_t_sold_in_supermarkets.2.html" target="_blank">Slate</a>, "The entire supply chain seems caught in an endlessly descending cycle of blandness, like some demented Escher illustration."</p>
<p>This greatly distresses Klee. "I have a lot of worries, and one is that we are raising a whole generation of people who don’t know what a tomato is supposed to taste like," he said. "If they go to Italy and buy a tomato at a roadside stand, it’s a life-changing event." For now most Americans are stuck with massive, perfectly red, eminently tasteless tomatoes.</p>
<h4><strong>American shoppers favor access over seasonality</strong></h4>
<p>Cooking with seasonal produce is often regarded by the best chefs as the key to more flavorful meals. But, whether for financial reasons or time constraints, Americans seem to want their produce available at all months of the year.</p>
<p>That inevitably has an impact on taste. Buying out of season means the produce has to be picked long before it has ripened and then shipped very long distances from the southern United States, or Mexico, or Central America. That journey can batter the flavor out of fresh fruits and vegetables.</p>
<p>Consider broccoli. Its stem holds a lot of sweetness — something you can taste if you eat it shortly after picking. But if the broccoli is left at room temperature for a long time (say, to be shipped), then that sweetness quickly disappears, explained Cornell horticulture researcher <a href="https://hort.cals.cornell.edu/people/thomas-bj%C3%B6rkman" target="_blank">Thomas Björkman</a>. This "post-harvest handling" — the way produce is treated after it's plucked — can greatly affect how it tastes on your dinner table later.</p>
<p>Klee pointed out that Europe also has out-of-season produce in its stores. The difference is that locals will generally demand and pay for better quality. "The Italians, probably more than anybody, have a higher standard," he said. "At their best, they’re only getting their tomatoes in season. But the reality is that most Americans don’t like seasonality. We’ve developed a system to give people in the northern US a tomato in January."</p>
<h4><strong>The US government regulates for safety — but not quality</strong></h4>
<p>One of my cousins, an Italian émigré in Canada, takes the time every year to buy a couple of butchered pigs and, over a period of several days, turn them into the most perfect charcuterie you've ever tasted.</p>
<p>The process is meticulous — he learned it in northern Italy as a child. When I visited him to watch his annual ritual (for a profile in <a href="http://www.macleans.ca/culture/salami-by-the-light-of-the-crescent-moon/" target="_blank">Maclean's magazine</a>) he told me that the slaughtered pigs can only become prosciutto and salami during the luna calante, the waning moon that follows the full moon. "If we don’t cure by the moon, the meat could go bad," he said then. This practice traces back to old farmer's lore.</p>
<p>That may not be perfectly scientific, but it's an example of the kind of obsessive focus on food quality that Europeans are known for. And that obsession is reflected in Europe's laws in a way that it's not in the United States.</p>
<p>Gavin Lavi Sacks, a wine researcher at Cornell, contrasted the experience of wine growers in the United States and France: "In the US, the primary concerns [of regulators] are safety and tax revenue as opposed to quality. In the EU, you have sub-regions — Bordeaux, Burgundy — and they each have rules about actual production practices."</p>
<p>A winemaker can grow Merlot grapes anywhere in America. In Bordeaux, France, not only must he only use particular grapes blends, but he also has to follow specific production practices such as using oak barrels and aging the wine for certain amount of time.</p>
<p>The Italians have the DOC (Denominazione di origine controllata) system — a government-regulated quality assurance program for wine and food. If a tomato or pizza or bottle of olive oil carries the DOC seal of approval, that means it was made following traditional practices and that it consists of ingredients sourced from particular locations. (The Italians do, however, have a problem with people <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/16/opinion/sunday/food-chains-mystery-of-san-marzano.html?_r=0" target="_blank">cheating the system</a>.)</p>
<p>The Italian system was modeled on France's AOC (Appellation d'origine contrôlée). That program dates back to the 1950s, around the time when Julia Child was complaining that chicken tasted like teddy bear stuffing. Some enterprising farmers in France noticed that consumers wanted access to traditionally raised farm chickens, and the Label Rouge program was launched. "It's not a brand name," says Schatzker. "It's a government controlled, regulated, and audited program."</p>
<p>Label Rouge chickens are raised more slowly, in open air, with access to lots of pasture. They're not fattened up on corn in industrial warehouses. There are also rules around pesticide and antibiotic use. The result is tastier chicken, the kind your grandmother was probably used to.</p>
<p>"I know these rules seem complex, medieval or bourgeois. But the truth is — they do take this stuff seriously," said Schatzker. "They protect what they believe is not only cultural value but deliciousness value."</p>
<p>"If you ask the question, 'Why are the chocolates better in Belgium and Switzerland?' it's because locals demand it that way," Schatzker added. "They don't tolerate or want lower quality. And they get upset when people try to pass off inferior quality food as being good."</p></div></div></div>Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:22:10 +0000Pam1020266 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgGMO Labeling: 5 Questions With Ag Secretary Tom Vilsackhttps://www.organicconsumers.org/news/gmo-labeling-5-questions-ag-secretary-tom-vilsack
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/genetic-engineering">Genetic Engineering</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Greg Trotter</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Chicago Tribune</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">March 25, 2016</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-gmo-labeling-agriculture-secretary-0326-biz-20160325-story.html</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-27346" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/vilsack-600x400">Vilsack 600x400</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/vilsack.jpeg?itok=b93q03SD" alt="Tom Vilsack, USDA" title="Tom Vilsack, USDA" /><div class="field field-name-field-html-attribution field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-gmo-labeling-agriculture-secretary-0326-biz-20160325-story.html" target="_blank">Charlie Neibergall / AP</a></p>
<p> </p></div></div></div> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Immediately after U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack concluded his remarks at the Good Food Festival in Chicago Thursday, he was approached by a couple of admirers — and one ardent supporter of GMO labeling who wanted to bend the politician's ear.</p>
<p>The debate on labeling products that contain GMOs — genetically modified organisms — has roiled the food and agriculture industries in recent weeks. Many consumers say they have a right to know what's in their food; those opposed to labeling say it gives the wrong impression the food is unsafe.</p>
<p>A Vermont law mandating labeling is set to go into effect July 1. Earlier this month, a U.S. Senate bill that would have pre-empted the Vermont law and established a national voluntary standard stalled on the Senate floor.</p>
<p>In a brief interview, Vilsack, a former two-term governor of Iowa, lamented the debate that's divided the farming community. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.</p>
<p><strong>Q: Were you disappointed the bill stalled in the Senate?</strong></p>
<p>A: I'm disappointed because I think it's an opportunity at this point in time to bring agriculture together as opposed to continuing this dispute within agriculture.</p>
<p>So it was a disappointment in that respect. I think it's also going to create a confusing mixture of ways in which individual companies and individual states are going to approach this issue. I think it begs for some sort of standardization. And I'm hoping that despite the setback that folks in the Senate don't stop working on this issue and figure out a way to reach common ground.</p>
<p><strong>Q: Do you think that's realistic before July 1, before Vermont's law goes into effect?</strong></p>
<p>A: I think it's certainly possible and doable if people spend the time and are willing to understand that they're not going to get everything they want. That's the nature of compromise. We seem to have lost the art of compromise in this country, which I think is unfortunate.</p>
<p>I think there are very valid reasons for consumers to have information. I think there are also concerns that if the information is conveyed in a particular way it sends the wrong message about the safety of the product. And I think there's deep concern on the part of food companies and producers that if you send that wrong message you create a circumstance where we will have issue with the costs or supply of food that are unnecessary.</p>
<p>Because there is no scientific evidence to suggest that GMO food is unsafe to consume. You may not agree with the process. You may have disagreements about the science in terms of what's better for the land and so forth. But at the end of the day, it's not about food safety.</p>
<p><strong>Q: You're in favor of a national mandatory standard, correct?</strong></p>
<p>A: I really think that's the only way to deal with this. This has to be mandated. And I think frankly that food companies recognize that and that's why so many food companies have come out since the failure of the Senate bill to say, OK, fine, we're going to put a label on it to comport with Vermont law.</p>
<p><strong>Q: And you see consumers scanning a QR code on a product with their phones as a possible compromise?</strong></p>
<p>A: That's certainly not the only way it should be done. There should be other ways. There should be an understanding that's easier for a larger company than a smaller company. There should be enough time to educate consumers about where this information is, so when it kicks in, they know precisely where to look for the information. There's a process the industry would have to go through and frankly they should have done this 20 years ago. But they didn't, so now they're playing catch-up.</p>
<p> </p></div></div></div>Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:18:00 +0000judy1019636 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgOklahoma Legislators Discriminate Against Animal Activistshttps://www.organicconsumers.org/news/oklahoma-legislators-discriminate-against-animal-activists
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/farm-issues">Farm Issues</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/politics-globalization">Politics &amp; Globalization</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Logan Layden</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">StateImpact, National Public Radio</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">March 2, 2016</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2016/03/02/right-to-farm-opposition-hopes-lawsuit-can-stop-state-question-before-the-ballot/</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-26806" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/okag-gaglawsjpg-0">ok_ag-gag_laws.jpg</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/ok_ag-gag_laws_0.jpg?itok=gloxTgMo" alt="Right-to-Farm Opposition Hopes Lawsuit Can Stop State Question Before the Ballot" title="Right-to-Farm Opposition Hopes Lawsuit Can Stop State Question Before the Ballot" /><div class="field field-name-field-html-attribution field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Photo: LOGAN LAYDEN / STATEIMPACT OKLAHOMA</p></div></div></div> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Will Oklahoma be more like Missouri or North Dakota?</p>
<p>In Missouri, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-farm_laws" target="_blank"><strong>Right-to-farm</strong></a> — a constitutional amendment that broadly protects the agricultural industry from future laws and regulations — was a contentious fight that pitted farmer against farmer and forced a recount of the statewide vote. But in North Dakota, Right-to-Farm passed by a 2-to-1 margin.</p>
<p>Early indications in Oklahoma seem to show a big battle brewing. Rep. Jason Dunnington, D-Oklahoma City, two private citizens, and the water advocacy group Save the Illinois River filed a lawsuit March 1 challenging the constitutionality of the state question before it even gets to a vote of the people in November.</p>
<p>In a press release, the coalition bringing the suit says State Question 777 would equate farming and ranching practices to fundamental rights like freedom of speech and religion, and allow “Big Ag” to run rampant.</p>
<p>“State Question 777 amounts to a massive giveaway to corporate agriculture in a truly unprecedented way,” Save the Illinois River President Denise Deason-Toyne says in the release. “Oklahomans have a right to clean water, clean air, and food safety. This ‘Right to Harm‘ amendment strips them of those rights in favor of an industry that cares on about its bottom line.”</p>
<p><a href="http://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2015/02/26/oklahoma-right-to-farm-push-about-more-than-agricultural-practices/" target="_blank"><strong>StateImpact has reported</strong></a> about how right-to-farm is really a fight between the Humane Society of the United States, which pushes for stronger animal welfare laws, and Farm Bureaus across the country, which push against those kinds of laws. Oklahoma is just the latest battleground.</p>
<p>The right-to-farm amendment is also being opposed by the Oklahoma Conference of Churches, the Oklahoma chapter of the Humane Society of the U.S., and the Oklahoma Stewardship Council, where former Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson serves as chairman.</p>
<p>“The world of industrial agriculture is changing with chemical additives to feed, growth hormones and genetic modifications,” Edmondson said in a statement announcing his opposition to SQ 777 in <a href="http://okenergytoday.com/2015/11/drew-edmondson-leads-fight-against-right-to-farm-question/" target="_blank"><strong>November 2015</strong></a>. “I can understand why they want to be free from scrutiny and regulation, but I cannot understand why we should let them.”</p></div></div></div>Wed, 02 Mar 2016 16:21:00 +0000Pam1019146 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgOrganic Consumers Association Calls out Vilsack for ‘Fear Mongering’ about GMO Labelinghttps://www.organicconsumers.org/press/organic-consumers-association-calls-out-vilsack-%E2%80%98fear-mongering%E2%80%99-about-gmo-labeling
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/genetic-engineering">Genetic Engineering</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/politics-globalization">Politics &amp; Globalization</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Organic Consumers Association</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">February 24, 2016</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-23741--2" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/tom-vilsack-420x280">Tom Vilsack 420x280</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/vilsack_420x280.jpg?itok=nu-Yui4B" alt="Sec. Tom Vilsack" title="Sec. Tom Vilsack" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p style="text-align: center;"><em><strong>Agriculture Secretary’s comments show great concern about corporate profits, no concern for U.S. consumers and taxpayers who pay his salary</strong></em></p>
<p><strong>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE<br />February 24, 2016</strong><br /> <br /><strong>CONTACT:</strong> <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/" target="_blank">Organic Consumers Association</a>, Katherine Paul, 207.653.3090</p>
<p>FINLAND, Minn. – The Organic Consumers Association today called out U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack for fear mongering and misleading Congress on the issue of mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).</p>
<p>“Secretary Vilsack’s comments, quoted in PoliticoPro today, are an example of shameless fear mongering, and of loyalty to corporate lobbyists instead of American consumers,” said Ronnie Cummins, international director of the Organic Consumers Association. “Claiming that enactment of Vermont’s law will cause ‘chaos’ is untrue. There are more than 100 state food labeling laws on the books in the U.S., including one in Vermont governing labels on maple syrup. The only difference between these other laws, and Vermont’s GMO labeling law, is that Monsanto and GMA lobbyists have spent millions of dollars to prevent Vermont’s GMO labeling law from taking effect.”</p>
<p>“Secretary Vilsack, who’s salary is paid by U.S. taxpayers, also implies in his statement today that the food industry needs more time to comply with Vermont’s law. Vermont’s governor signed Act 120 into law in May, 2014, nearly two years ago. If industry had spent its time preparing to comply with the law, instead of suing Vermont, and spending millions to preempt the law, food companies would be ready to roll out those labels in July.</p>
<p>“As Campbell’s Soup Co. recently said, it is not difficult to print “produced with genetic engineering” on a label—and it costs nothing. It is insulting to imply that consumers need more ‘education and acceptance. When it comes to GMOs. Consumers have already educated themselves. They are aware of the health and environmental risks associated with GMO commodity foods, and they are rightfully demanding transparency.</p>
<p>“If the U.S. Senate caves in to Secretary Vilsack’s demands to support Monsanto and the junk food corporations, instead of the majority of Americans who continue to be denied basic information about what’s in their food, it will be one of the biggest betrayals of the American public, at the behest of corporate money, that we have seen in a long time.”</p>
<p><em>The <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/" target="_blank">Organic Consumers Association</a> (OCA) is an online and grassroots non-profit 501(c)3 consumer advocacy organization campaigning for health, justice, and sustainability on behalf of more than two million consumers. The Organic Consumers Fund is a 501(c)4 allied organization of the Organic Consumers Association, focused on grassroots lobbying and legislative action.</em></p>
<p> </p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-show-bio field-type-list-boolean field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:08:00 +0000Melinda1018416 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgTell the USDA: Let Pesticide and Bee Researchers Do Their Jobs. Stop Suppressing Science! https://www.organicconsumers.org/node/1017821
<div class="field field-name-field-belong-to-campaign field-type-entityreference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Belong to campaign:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/campaigns/usda-watch">USDA Watch</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/campaigns/save-bees">Save the Bees</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Category:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/farm-issues">Farm Issues</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-area-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Area:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/usa">USA</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/250x250/public/milkweed_monarch.jpg?itok=kPf5gNOD" width="250" height="167" alt="Monarch on Milkweed" title="Monarch on Milkweed" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Dr. Jonathan Lundgren was once considered to have a “stellar” career at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), even earning the agency’s Outstanding Early Career Research Scientist title in 2011.</p>
<p>But ever since Lundgren went public with some of his findings about neonicotinoids, the class of pesticides linked to Colony Collapse Disorder, Lundgren says he has been the target of harassment and retaliation.</p>
<p>You might think that the USDA hires the best scientists, to do the most reliable, unbiased research, in order to protect the public.</p>
<p>But Lundgren’s story reads more like a story of the USDA suppressing the research of its own scientists, in order to protect corporate profits.</p>
<p>The neonicotinoid industry, dominated by Bayer and Syngenta, is worth about $1.9 billion. Many of the genetically engineered seeds sold by Monsanto are pre-coated with neonics.</p>
<p><a href="http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=18306" target="_blank"><strong>TAKE ACTION! Tell the USDA to stop suppressing science. Let researchers do their job!</strong></a><a href="/node/1017821" class="more-link">Read more</a></p></div></div></div>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 20:45:00 +0000Melinda1017821 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgHelping Small Farmers in the South Go Organichttps://www.organicconsumers.org/news/helping-small-farmers-south-go-organic
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/organlink">All About Organics</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/environment-and-climate">Environment &amp; Climate</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/farm-issues">Farm Issues</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Elanor Starmer, AMS Acting Administrator</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">USDA Blog</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">February 11, 2016</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">http://blogs.usda.gov/2016/02/11/helping-small-farmers-in-the-south-go-organic/</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-25296" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/lafarmersgoorganicjpg">la_farmers_go_organic.jpg</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/la_farmers_go_organic.jpg?itok=C_elNFGd" alt="Helping Small Farmers in the South Go Organic" title="Helping Small Farmers in the South Go Organic" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Rock Woods, Gulf States Regional Director for the <a href="https://www.ncat.org/" target="_blank">National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT)</a>, knows the importance of persistence. Rock wanted to help more farmers in the southeast learn about organic certification, but he also knew that farmers are busy. That’s why Rock and NCAT launched a sustained engagement and outreach effort to reach potential organic farmers, and his persistence paid off!<br /><br />NCAT is one of 13 organizations that the USDA <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/" target="_blank">Agricultural Marketing Service’s</a> (AMS) <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/national-organic-program" target="_blank">National Organic Program</a> (NOP) partnered with to create educational materials that support the <a href="http://blogs.usda.gov/2015/10/27/sound-and-sensible-initiative-projects-simplify-organic-certification/" target="_blank">sound and sensible initiative</a> to make organic certification more affordable, accessible, and attainable.</p>
<p>NCAT works to develop local and sustainable solutions to reduce poverty, promote healthy communities, and protect natural resources. The NCAT sound and sensible project focused on educating farmers and ranchers in the Gulf States region about organic production, as well as helping facilitate organic certification. By providing a series of training and informational workshops, along with follow-up and certification audit scheduling, NCAT succeeded in reaching its goal.</p>
<p>To start the process, Rock explored co-hosting organic farming and certification workshops with USDA-accredited organic certifier <a href="http://www.qcsinfo.org/" target="_blank">Quality Certification Services</a> (QCS). The resulting workshops and on-farm demonstrations were held in five states – Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Each workshop included a half-day in a classroom to learn about the USDA organic regulations and the certification process, followed by a half-day out at a farm.</p>
<p>For others interested in conducting these kinds of workshops, Rock recommends partnering with a USDA-accredited organic certifier; for the on-site farm visits, he recommends partnering with the certifying agent as well as state and local extension programs. He notes that farm visits are critical because they allow farmers to see and experience the organic regulations in practice. With a farm visit, producers can see first-hard what is allowed and prohibited in organic production, and how to prevent contamination and co-mingling of product. Rock also said that mock inspections, had a big impact by providing interested farmers with real-life examples of the organic requirements and the certification process.</p>
<p>Materials produced and used by NCAT, including the workshop itinerary, in-class presentation, pre and post tests, and more, are now available for use by other organizations. Access them at: <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/report-publication/report-and-tools-field-organic-outreach-success-southeast" target="_blank">NCAT South Organic Certification Workshop Tools You Can Use</a>.</p></div></div></div>Thu, 11 Feb 2016 18:21:54 +0000Pam1017746 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgSD Scientist Honored for 'Civic Courage' in Washington, D.C.https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/sd-scientist-honored-civic-courage-washington-dc
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/organlink">All About Organics</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/food-safety">Food Safety</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/genetic-engineering">Genetic Engineering</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Lance Nixon</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Capital Journal</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">November 30, 2015</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">http://www.capjournal.com/news/sd-scientist-honored-for-civic-courage-in-washington-d-c/article_99b46104-97e1-11e5-aa66-5fb79284b9e4.html</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>A Brookings-based entomologist for the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service has won a prestigious national award for civic courage for speaking out on his insect and pesticide research despite what he says is the agency’s effort to “suppress” his work.</p>
<p>Jonathan Lundgren of United States Department of Agriculture’s laboratory north of Brookings received the Callaway Award for Civic Courage, intended to honor those who “at some personal risk, take a public stance to advance truth and justice, and who challenge prevailing conditions in pursuit of the common good.” Lundgren was in Washington, D.C., on Monday to receive the honor.</p>
<p>Two others besides Lundgren were honored: John R. Crane, Former Assistant Inspector General, Department of Defense, for “Protecting Whistleblowers from Government Abuse,” and James Love &amp; Manon Ress, Ph.D., Knowledge Ecology International, for “Breaking Big Pharma’s Grip to Make Drugs Affordable for Poorer Countries and Revolutionizing Intellectual Property Rights”</p>
<p><strong>‘In the crosshairs’</strong></p>
<p>The program note about Lundgren’s award in the online announcement of the awards at www.callawayawards.org describes Lundgren as an “Entomologist in the Crosshairs of Science and Corporate Politics.”</p>
<p>Lundgren recently drew attention in the science community and the media when he publicly filed an official whistleblower retaliation complaint with the federal Merit Systems Protection Board. He alleges that the USDA suppressed scientific research and retaliated against him for filing a scientific integrity complaint with the Department of Agriculture. Lundgren filed the scientific integrity complaint in fall 2014 and filed the whistleblower retaliation complaint in October 2015.</p>
<p>“The whole situation has changed my career trajectory as a result of this. I was simply doing my job, but because the science is not convenient, it elicited a pretty severe reaction,” Lundgren told the Capital Journal in a telephone interview on Saturday, Nov. 28. “Hopefully it will open the door so that other scientists are able to have complete and unencumbered freedom to discuss their research and where it fits into the grand scheme of things within the federal government and within university systems as well. Scientific freedom is the same as freedom of speech. If we don’t have it, how can we move forward as a society? If we can’t even discuss certain topics because they’re too controversial, then we’re in serious problems. We’re in for trouble.”</p>
<p><strong>The research</strong></p>
<p>Lundgren’s research deals with assessing environmental risks associated with neonicotinoid insecticides, including the potentially detrimental effects such pesticides can have on beneficial pollinator insects..</p>
<p>“These are the chemistries used on most insecticidal seed treatments on most crops right now, corn, sunflowers, wheat, soybeans, cotton, alfalfa, you name it. If it comes with a colored seed, chances are really good it has neonicotinoids on it,” Lundgren told the Capital Journal. “I think the general theme of the research results was that these insecticidal seed treatments weren’t helping farmers and that they were having an environmental effect. The science was really strong on that, including my own data.”</p>
<p>Lundgren has also done work with a new form of genetic pesticide called RNAi, which silences critical gene functions in pests. RNAi stands for “RNA interference.” Lundgren’s research has included such topics as the risks posed to non-target insects by RNAi-based GM crops.</p>
<p>“One of the aspects of my research program has been on risk assessment of pesticides and genetically modified crops and making sure that these things are safe for the environment. I’m not anti-pesticides and I’m not anti-GM crops,” Lundgren said in his visit with the Capital Journal. “I do think we need to be using these things sensibly and we do need to have a clear perception of their risks.”</p></div></div></div>Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:34:00 +0000Pam1015066 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgAvian Flu: A Chicken and Egg Story?https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/avian-flu-chicken-and-egg-story
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/organlink">All About Organics</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/save-organic-standards-sos">Save Organic Standards (SOS)</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/environment-and-climate">Environment &amp; Climate</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/cafos-vs-free-range">CAFOs vs. Free Range</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/farm-issues">Farm Issues</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Katherine Paul and Tagwongo Obomsawin</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Organic Consumers Association</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">August 19, 2015</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-new field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div id="file-17731" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/baby-chick-grass-green420x280jpg-0">baby-chick-grass-green_420x280.jpg</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img src="https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/styles/400x300/public/baby-chick-grass-green_420x280_0.jpg?itok=wtU_t07D" alt="Avian Flu: A Chicken &amp; Egg Story?" title="Avian Flu: A Chicken &amp; Egg Story?" /> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>According to a <a href="http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2015/08/report-finds-12-billion-iowa-avian-flu-damage" target="_blank">recent report</a>, this year’s Avian Flu outbreak has cost the state of Iowa, the country’s <a href="http://www.aeb.org/farmers-and-marketers/industry-overview" target="_blank">largest egg producer</a>, $1.2 billion in sales, lost wages and losses for farmers. Minnesota and Nebraska also suffered heavy losses.<br /><br />In all, about 200 farms in 15 states were affected by this year’s outbreak, costing U.S. egg and poultry exporters more than $380 million, said the Poultry &amp; Egg Export Council, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/usda-seeking-proposals-production-bird-flu-vaccine-33178813" target="_blank">as reported</a> by Associated Press.<br /><br />The outbreak was no picnic for the birds, either. In Iowa, 30 million hens and 1.5 million turkeys were euthanized because of the H5N2 virus. As the<em> Guardian</em> reported:</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><em>When avian flu infects a single bird on a chicken farm, the whole population has to be destroyed in order to stop the spread. In Iowa, for example, where an egg farm holds anywhere from 70,000 to 5 million birds, infection means slaughtering an unimaginable number of animals.</em></p>
<p>Minnesota and Nebraska also suffered heavy losses this year. Nationwide, the flu killed about 50 million birds.<br /><br />Avian Flu brings with it a measure of human suffering, too, as poultry workers find themselves jobless. It also creates a hardship for consumers, who pay skyrocketing prices for eggs. According to <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/13/egg-prices-breaking-all-time-highs-on-bird-flu.html" target="_blank">one report</a>, egg prices in the Midwest are breaking all-time highs, thanks to this year’s outbreak.<br /><br />To hear the media and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/usda-seeking-proposals-production-bird-flu-vaccine-33178813" target="_blank">tell it</a>, the solution to Avian Flu is to <a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/APHIS-plans-avian-vaccine-stockpile-08182015.asp" target="_blank">stockpile</a> vaccines. That notion rattles broiler meat exporters, who say other countries <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/avian-flu-united-states-poultry-114046.html" target="_blank">won’t buy</a> their vaccinated meat. (This year’s flu outbreak affected egg-producers; broiler producers were largely spared).<br /><br />Talk of vaccines isn’t exactly music to the ears of consumers, either. They want fewer, not more, vaccines used on factory farms.<br /><br />Is there another way to deal with Avian Flu? Yes, says Reginaldo Haslett-Marroquin, COO of the <a href="http://mainstreetproject.org/" target="_blank">Main Street Project</a>, a large-scale organic regenerative poultry project under way in Minnesota, Mexico and Guatamala. Haslett-Marroquin argues that we should focus more on prevention, and less on a cure. That means replacing today’s poultry factory farms with an alternative organic, regenerative model.<br /><br />It turns out that we haven’t been asking the right question, which is: Which came first? The diseased chicken? Or the chicken disease?<br /><br /><strong>Identifying the culprit, or culprits</strong><br /><br />Typically, wild migrating birds are blamed for infecting poultry flocks with H5N2. Human “biosecurity errors” are suspects, too, as are wind and ventilation systems, according to a <a href="http://fortune.com/2015/06/25/bird-flu-outbreak-farms/" target="_blank">report</a> in Fortune magazine. Still, the USDA <a href="http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2015/06/usda-h5n2-likely-spreads-multiple-routes" target="_blank">admits</a> that the problem is likely more complex than that. Truth be told, the agency can’t pinpoint, at least with any reasonable certainty, “one factor or group of factors in a statistically significant way at this time” responsible for the latest outbreak.<br /><br />Industrial poultry farms engage in elaborate biosecurity measures to prevent contamination of their flocks. According to the Center for Disease Research and Policy:</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><em>The egg industry’s huge “layer operations”—the sort that house millions of birds in one place—are designed to protect birds from contamination, says Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota at the University of Minnesota. The animals’ environment is tightly controlled, and workers who enter the henhouse follow special hygiene protocols; often, they must shower in and out, change clothes and wear special boots. But when a virus pierces such defenses, or when defenses lapse, having all of one’s eggs in one basket (so to speak) can make the impact more devastating.</em></p>
<p>Yet all those special clothes, extra showers and “special hygiene protocols” didn’t protect farmers and their flocks this year. Some argue that it was because of <a href="http://www.worldpoultry.net/Other-Poultry-Species/Turkeys/2015/7/US-AI-outbreak-made-worse-by-poor-farm-auditing-2664477W/" target="_blank">lapses</a> in the industry’s biosecurity audit program—only 43 percent of farms were actually audited.<br /><br />Whether it’s a failure of the protocols themselves, or the failure of poultry farm operators and workers to adhere to the protocols, it’s hard to reconcile descriptions of near-sterile cleanliness standards with the reality of factory farms—where millions of birds are crammed into filthy, unnatural and highly stressful conditions, deprived of the ability to nest, roost, flap their wings or even see the light of day.<br /><br /><strong>As demand grows, so grow the factory farms</strong><br /><br />According to the <a href="http://www.aeb.org/farmers-and-marketers/industry-overview" target="_blank">United Egg Producers</a>, there are about 181 egg-producing companies in the U.S., with flocks of 75,000 hens or more. These companies represent about 99 percent of all the layers in the U.S.</p>
<p>Egg-producing factory farms are <a href="http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2010/04/investigation_rose_acre_rembrandt_040710.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/" target="_blank">inhumane</a>. They are also <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/how%E2%80%94and-why%E2%80%94-boycott-eggs-factory-farms" target="_blank">big polluters</a> of the environment. And they’re not a healthy place for <a href="http://www.foodispower.org/factory-farm-workers/" target="_blank">people</a> to work, either.<br /><br />And as it turns out, industrial poultry farms aren’t a healthy place for birds, no matter how many times workers shower and change their clothes, or engage in other “biosecurity protocols.”<br /><br />And that, says Haslett-Marroquin, is why the birds on industrial poultry farms, who live in misery, under stress, deprived of a normal diet, in a controlled, rather than natural environment, are more vulnerable to disease.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><em>All viruses or bacteria that make animals sick need an entry point. Confinement animal production is based on the complete manipulation of the animal's life cycle outside of its natural environment. No natural environment = no naturally developed defenses which result from exposure to such natural conditions and a lifetime of interactions with these conditions. These characteristics define the intricate environmental control systems that must be installed in confinement operations in order to keep ALL bacteria, viruses, dust particles, temperature, humidity, and especially natural behaviors that the bird wants to manifest, under control. The result, is an animal that is VERY vulnerable to a natural environment and a quick entry point for such aggressive viruses such as the bird flu.</em></p>
<p>According to Haslett-Marroquin, it’s impossible to achieve completely sterile conditions outside of a laboratory. Viruses eventually will find their way into CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operations, the industry name for “Factory Farms). Without a doubt, he says, animals raised in factory farm conditions will never develop resistance that can be converted into a natural disease control strategy going forward.<br /><br />Dr Michael Greger, director of public health and animal agriculture for the Humane Society of the United States, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/vital-signs/2015/jul/14/bird-flu-devastation-highlights-unsustainability-of-commercial-chicken-farming" target="_blank">told</a> the<em> Guardian</em> that commercial poultry farms “are designed like a disease incubator,” thanks to dark, moist and crowded conditions. Sunshine and warm temperatures, on the other hand, are effective at killing the virus.<br /><br />The <em>Guardian</em> also cited genetics as another contributor to the weakened immune systems of birds raised on factory farms.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><em>On top of that, the genetic makeup of birds found in factory farms is often less diverse than those raised in backyard flocks. Due to the industry’s reliance on homogenous breeding techniques, commercially raised broilers are all pretty much genetically identical. Broilers and turkeys are artificially selected and bred to produce birds that grow quickly – at a rate 300% faster than those birds raised in 1960, according to the ASPCA–and produce as much breast protein as possible, to the point where the birds have a hard time standing upright.</em></p>
<p>Avian Flu isn’t going away anytime soon, <a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/APHIS-plans-avian-vaccine-stockpile-08182015.asp" target="_blank">says the USDA</a>. But Haslett-Marroquin is probably less concerned about a potential outbreak than his factory farm neighbors in Minnesota. His regenerative design system presents a greater challenge for viruses to find an entry point. But if they do, he says, he’ll use that as an opportunity to continue research and development of avian flu-resistant strains of birds that have already been produced in Mexico and throughout Latin America.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;"><em>As regenerative systems improve, we have seen significant improvements in the quality of plants and their resistance to diseases and pests that normally affect them, and we have seen healthy egg layers and meat birds (with the exception of industrial cornish broiler breeds) for over 6 years. We have no hesitation in concluding that these overall environmental conditions enhance the birds’ ability to fight diseases—a phenomenon that has proven true for humans and other species as well.</em></p>
<p>While the operators of poultry factory farms finish cleaning up the carnage and wring their hands in anticipation of another Avian Flu outbreak, and while the USDA stockpiles vaccines they’re not even sure will work, maybe it’s time to ask: What’s the real problem? Avian Flu? Or factory farms?<br /><br /><em>Katherine Paul is associate director for the <a href="https://organicconsumers.org" target="_blank">Organic Consumers Association</a>.<br /><br />Tagwongo Obomsawin is a writer and researcher for the <a href="https://organicconsumers.org" target="_blank">Organic Consumers Association</a>.</em></p></div></div></div>Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:20:00 +0000Pam1010876 at https://www.organicconsumers.orgSunOpta, Deeply Rooted in Minnesota, is a Big Player in Organic, Non-GMO Foodhttps://www.organicconsumers.org/news/sunopta-deeply-rooted-minnesota-big-player-organic-non-gmo-food
<div class="field field-name-field-category-new field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/genetic-engineering">Genetic Engineering</a>,&nbsp;</div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/millions-against-monsanto">Millions Against Monsanto</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-author-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Mike Hughlett</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-publisher-new field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Star Tribune</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-dateuni-new field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">July 11, 2015</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source-url-new field-type-link-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">http://www.startribune.com/sunopta-deeply-rooted-in-minnesota-is-a-big-player-in-organic-non-gmo-food/313401691/</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The company’s name, SunOpta, doesn’t register much in a state that hosts such food industry giants as General Mills and Cargill.</p>
<p>But the Toronto-based company, which has a deep presence in Minnesota, is ensconced in one of the hottest spots in the food business: organic and non-GMO.</p>
<p>SunOpta supplies packaged food companies with ingredients from sunflower seeds to fruit, and makes its finished products — soymilk and orange juice, for instance — for major food retailers. It also is the nation’s ­largest organic soybean processor.</p>
<p>It’s unique in the breadth of its organic offerings, and this spring became the first company to win federal approval for a label verifying its non-GMO sourcing process. The packaging label could give it a competitive advantage as consumers increasingly seek food free of genetically modified ingredients.</p>
<p>“I don’t think [the non-GMO label] will initially do much, but it has the potential to do a lot,” said Eric Gottlieb, a stock analyst at D.A. Davidson. “It could potentially open the door to more sales. It’s a very nice thing to have.”</p>
<p>Currently, the food industry relies on one significant packaging label — “Non-GMO Project Verified” — to indicate that a product is free of genetically modified ingredients. SunOpta’s “Process Verified” label, which has the imprimatur of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, could become a competitor.</p>
<p>But even if the new label proves a dud, the company still stands to post strong sales growth, Gottlieb said.</p>
<p>“SunOpta is one of the few companies that can fully participate in the growing consumer trend for high-quality natural, organic and specialty foods,” he wrote in a research note.</p>
<p>The company’s stock, after bottoming at less than $2 in 2009, rose to a range of $12 to $14 last fall as the organic market flourished. But the stock dropped to the $10 to $12 range after SunOpta fell short of near-term financial expectations. It closed Friday at $10.17.</p>
<p>SunOpta Foods is rooted in Minnesota, and about 40 percent of its workforce — 550 employees — are employed in the state. SunOpta’s corporate office in Edina, which includes a research and development center, employs 120, and its two plants in ­Alexandria together have about 200 workers. The rest are in other plants around the state.</p>
<p>Last week, the company announced a new CEO effective Oct. 1, Rik Jacobs, who will be based in Edina, instead of Toronto as is the case with the current CEO.</p>
<p>The company got its start in the food business in about 2000 when it bought soybean specialist Sunrich Inc. (based in the southern Minnesota community of Hope) along with soy milk processing and packaging operations in Alexandria.</p>
<p>Over the years, SunOpta bought several small food companies, and today the publicly traded company has about $1.2 billion in annual sales. It sources ingredients — including nuts and cocoa — from 65 countries and counts as customers such heavyweights as Costco, Target, Starbucks, General Mills and Kraft.</p>
<p>Sales of organic foods are booming, hitting nearly $36 billion in 2014 and growing at an 11 percent pace in the past two years, according to the Organic Trade Association. Mintel, a market research company, said that last year, 10.7 percent of all new food and beverage products made organic claims, up from 6.4 percent in 2012.</p>
<p>“The demand is far outpacing our ability to add [organic] acreage in the U.S.,” said John Ruelle, SunOpta’s Edina-based chief administrative officer. “Our governor on growth is going to be access to supply.”</p>
<p>SunOpta’s business is about evenly split between non-GMO and organic ingredients and products. Consumer demand for non-GMO ­products has popped in the past three years.</p>
<p>In 2014, 10.2 percent of all new U.S. food and beverage products contained a “GMO-free” claim, according to Mintel, up from 6.5 percent in 2013 and only 2.8 percent in 2012.</p>
<h4><strong>Complex sourcing</strong></h4>
<p>SunOpta buys commodities directly from farmers, but converting from conventional to organic agriculture can be a risky venture. While organic crops can be more profitable, it usually takes farmers three years to meet the exacting standards of the USDA’s organic program.</p>
<p>Switching to non-GMO crops is an easier proposition, since the farmer primarily needs only to use seeds that haven’t been genetically modified. (Organic crops use non-GMO seeds, too.)</p>
<p>GMO-free has no federal regulatory definition, unlike organic. Products that have been certified as organic by USDA-approved testers can display the USDA organic label. With non-GMO products, labeling has become a contentious issue.</p>
<p>Makers of packaged foods have successfully fought legislative attempts to force labeling of products with GMO ingredients, a movement born of consumer skepticism about GMO safety. (Federal food safety regulators consider GMOs safe.) But food ­makers support voluntary GMO-free labeling as a method of marketing to GMO-wary ­consumers.</p>
<p>They have been largely relying on the nonprofit Non-GMO Project. The Non-GMO Project bestows its label — which features a stylized butterfly — on products proven to be free of genetically engineered ingredients. The organization works with independent testing companies to do the research.</p>
<p>Since its label launched in 2010, the Non-GMO Project has verified close to 35,000 products, including about 10,000 so far this year. Several large makers of packaged foods use the label. About 200 products from Golden Valley-based General Mills — under brands such as Cascadian Farms, Annie’s, Muir Glen and Larabar — sport the Non-GMO Project label.</p>
<p>SunOpta’s non-GMO label is a different animal, but could serve a similar purpose as the Non-GMO Project’s seal.</p>
<h4><strong>Dueling labels</strong></h4>
<p>In May, the USDA allowed its Process Verified certification to be used by SunOpta for non-GMO food production — a first. The certification has been around for years, and has been used by many agriculture and food companies, including Minnetonka-based Cargill.</p>
<p>The USDA has verified Cargill’s processes for ensuring that some turkey products were raised by independent farmers who didn’t use antibiotics to juice the birds’ growth. SunOpta won the Process Verified certification for non-GMO production, specifically for its grain processing operation in Hope.</p>
<p>“It’s a validation of what we have been doing all along,” said SunOpta’s Ruelle.</p>
<p>The company plans to get Process Verified status for its Alexandria operations and other plants, which would allow the USDA bug to be printed directly onto consumer products, not just ingredients headed for a food manufacturer. Almost 40 percent of SunOpta’s 2014 sales and 48 percent of its profits came from consumer products such as soy milk, snacks and frozen fruit packed under private labels.</p>
<p>SunOpta executives downplay any talk that the USDA Process Verifed label could become a competitor to the Non-GMO Project. So did Courtney Pineau-Bos, the Non-GMO Project’s associate director, who said there’s a “stark contrast” between the two labels. But some executives in the ingredient-supply business have a different take.</p>
<p>“It’s a competing certification,” said Lynn Clarkson, president of Clarkson Grain, an Illinois-based organic and non-GMO grain supplier. “There is no one definition of non-GMO.”</p></div></div></div>Sat, 11 Jul 2015 18:02:00 +0000Pam1010476 at https://www.organicconsumers.org